1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 24-5-1993 at 4-00 p.m. The complainant P.W.1 Munawar Ahmed and P.W.2 Javed Ahmed were present in their house situated in Mohallah Mir Jannaullah. Work on the repair of the house was going on and their elder brother P.W.3 Nazir Ahmed was looking after the said repair work. At the said time there was knock at the door therefore P.W.3 Nazeer Ahmed went outside the house. After some time they heard cries. The complainant and P.Ws. Went there and saw appellant Mohib Shah giving fist blows to Nazir Ahmed who fell down on the ground. They saved P.W.3 and then the appellant ran away.
2. P.W.3 was bleeding from his mouth as his tooth was dislocated. The complainant went to police station for lodging the F.I.R. The police after usual investigation challaned the appellant in the Court of law.
3. ' In the beginning the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur framed the charge for offence punishable under section 337-A, P.P.C. But subsequently it was amended to make it the charge for offence punishable under sections 334 and 337-A(iv), P.P.C. After trial the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence punishable under section 334, P.P.C. And sentenced him to suffer R.I for one year and pay Arsh or in default thereof to remain in jail till the payment of said amount vide impugned judgment dated 26-5-1996._ ' I have heard the Advocate for the appellant, A.A.-G. For the State and perused the record of this case very carefully.
4. ' The learned Advocate for the appellant has stated that all the P.Ws. Are interested and related inter se; that there was enmity between the parties therefore the case is highly doubtful.
5. Conversely learned A.A.-G. Has stated that evidence of injured witness is supported and corroborated by his two brothers and their evidence is further supported by the medical evidence as Board was constituted to examine the injured in which it was found that initial certificate issued by the Medical Officer was incorrect and that the appellant in his statement has admitted his presence at the place of the incident and that the appellant's witnesses admitted that the injured has lost his tooth.
6. I have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the evidence with the assistance of the learned Advocate for the appellant who confirms that the case rests upon ocular testimony, which consists of three witnesses viz. P.W.1 complainant Munawar Ali, P.W.2 Javed and P.W.3 injured Nazir Ahmed. All the three witnesses are unanimous that on the date time and place of the incident they were present in the house when there was knock at the door and P.W.3 went outside the house. The evidence of P.W.3 further reveals that when he reached outside the house he saw appellant standing and then he caused fist blows on his face with the result that his tooth was dislocated. He raised cries on which P.Ws. Came. Both the P.Ws. Fully supported the injured as they stated that on cries they reached outside the house and saw the appellant causing fist blows on the face of the victim who was bleeding from his mouth and his tooth was dislocated. Their evidence is further corroborated by the medical evidence.
7. ' In this case initially the injured was examined by Dr. Muhammad Usman Mako P.W.4 who issued the certificate. The said certificate was challenged and a Board was constituted which was headed by Dr. Mumtaz Ali Awan and three other doctors one of them was P.W.7 Ahsanullah Janjwa Sr.
8. Dental Surgeon. The said doctor was examined, he deposed that the Board was of the view that the tooth of the injured was dislocated due to external violence and the Medical Certificate issued by the earlier doctor was not correct.
9. All the witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, enmity was suggested between the witnesses and the appellant that there was dispute between them over construction of wall. The witnesses admitted the dispute. Such dispute cuts both ends. All the injuries on the person of the injured has also been admitted by the appellant by taking the plea that tooth of the injured was already broken. He stated that the complainant party filed the false case as he restrained them from constructing the wall. He examined two defence witnesses Muhammad Hayat and Amir Ali Shah. They stated that when they reached at the place of incident they were informed by the labours that victim had fallen and broken his tooth. From the evidence of defence witnesses the presence of the victim at the date, time and place of the incident has been established and so also the dislocation of the tooth. The appellant stated that the tooth of the victim was already broken but the D.Ws. Did not depose so as they stated that when they reached the place of the incident they were informed that victim had fallen down from staircase and broken his tooth. After keeping both the stories in juxtaposition to each other it has been established beyond shadow of doubt that the appellant had caused the injuries to victim therefore he is liable for the punishment of the said offence.
10. ' The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under the impugned judgment. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said judgment.
11. ' Above are the reasons of my short order dated 23-8-2006 by which I had dismissed the appeal.