1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah dated 4March, 1974 whereby the appellant Idan was convicted under section 307. P. P. C. And sentenced to suffer R. I. For 3 years and pay a fine of Rs. 300 or in default to suffer further R. I. For 3 months. The co- accused who was father of the present appellant was acquitted by the same judgment. I may also mention that another co---accused in the case namely Mohammad son of Ismail had died during the trial of the case.
2. The facts of the case as related in the F. I. R. Exh. 6 which was filed on 2nd March, 1972 at 8-15 hours by P. W. Abdul Rauf at Kazi Ahmed Police Station arc to the following effect:--- "That Abdul Rehman's is my brother and we are residing together, and he is Secretary of People's Party at Kazi Ahmed. Today Abdul Rehman's went to inform the members of People's Party about meeting to Kazi Ahmed. After some time Mohammad came running and told that Abdul Rehman's was coming from Shahi Bazar to Kazi Ahmed and when lie reached near the shop of Mulla Halwai (Sweetmeat merchant) that from his back namely Ismail son Haji Edan, Mohammad and others came. Haji Edan and Mohammad were armed with hatchets. Ismail instigated his (word illegible as torn) not to spare Abdul Rehman's, whereupon Haji Edan inflicted a sharp---sided hatchet blow to Abdul Rehman's on heal, and Mohammad gave; sharp-sided hatchet blow on arm. Thereafter Abdul Rehman's after receiving blows became injured and fell down and was bleeding from injuries. On hearing so I went there running and saw that Abdul Rahman had received injuries on head and arms and was bleeding from there. On enquiry Abdul Rehman's told that Ismail asked him that we should settle the matter of relationship with them in brotherhood, whereupon he replied that we will not do, where--upon Haji Edan and Mohammad have given him blows on theth instigation of Ismail. Thereafter Mohammad Hussain (word illegible) and Mohammad (word illegible) saved me. Thereafter I took Abdul Rehman's to Kazi Ahmed Hospital, and after leaving him there, hays; come to lodge complaint that the accused persons with intention to commit murder of my brother have inflicted him hatchet injuries and have injured him. There is a dispute between us upon the matrimonial affairs. Now I lodge complaint, justice be done."
3. P. W. 6 Mohammad Huroon A. S. I. Of the Police Station heed recorded the said F. I. R. Thereafter he went to Dispensary and inspected the injuries of the injured Abdul Rehman's P. W. 2 and prepared mashirnama Exh, 11 in presenter of Mashir Ali Bux and Haji Khan. He also obtained shirt and banyan of the injured vide Exh. 12 then he recorded the state--ments of injured Abdul Rehman's, P. W.
4. Mohammed and Mohammad Hussain at the dispensary, acid thereafter, visited place of vardat where there, were blood marks. Vardat memo, is Exh.
13. He also recorded then statements of Hussain, Sideman, Ramzan, Hussain, Taromul, Pritam Das, Haji Abdullah and Motandas.
5. P. W. 1 Abdul Rauf the complainant has supported the contents of the F. I. R. In his deposition fully and he stated that he was informed by Mohammad that at the instigation of Ismail Edan and Mohammad had attacked Abdul Rehman's and had caused injuries to him on his head and arm by hatchets. However, the motive which he had given in the F. I. R. Of matrimonial dispute was changed in his deposition to be a political rivalry. In his cross-examination he admitted that there had been dispute between the parties on account of Qadir Bux's were having remained with the complainant for 5 or 6 years. He admitted that when he reached the vardat the injured was conscious. He denied that the shopkeeper at the vardat had informed him that there bad been a fight between accused Muhammad and his brother Abdul Rehman's. P. W. 2 Abdul Rehman's the injured had stated that at the instigation of accused Ismail, Edan had inflicted hatchet injury on his head and Mohammad had inflicted hatchet injury on his left arm and on his cries P. W. Mohammad Hussain and Mohammad were attracted. He stated that he remained as indoor patient for 22 or 23 days. He also stated that on account of his popularity in the. Pakistan People's Party he was attacked by the accused. In cross-examination he admitted the dispute with the accused over Sanga Bandi (matrimonial affairs). He further 'admitted that he had been attacked by accused Edan with a knife but the matter had been settled on. Holy Qur'an. He however clearly admitted enmity between him and accused for the last 6 years.
6. P. W. 3 Mohammad Hussain and P. W. 4 Mohammad, however in their depositions involved only Edan as person who had given hatchet injury to injured Abdul Rehman's. The Medical Officer Mr. Nooruddin P. W. 7 had proved the only injury he found on the head of Abdul Rehman's and 2 incised injuries on his arm. He gave the opinion that the injury on the head was caused by the sharp weapon and was grievous. The inured .Had been sent to him by Kazi Ahmed Police on 2nd March, 1972 at 6 p.m. And he found injuries to have been caused within one hour and the certificate to that effect is Exh. 7-A. The F. I. R. In the case had been filed at 18-15 hours while the offence was alleged to have taken place on the same day at 5-30 p.m. Therefore, it is obvious that the injuries and the time in the F. I. R. Tally with each other and it is further clear that F. I. R. Had been filed without any loss of time within 45 minutes of the incident.
7. The Investigating Officer P. W. 6 Mohammad Haroon made formal statement of having conducted the investigation. He in the cross-examina--tion could not say whether the witnesses examined by him were eye--witnesses or not, they however claimed to be eye-witnesses.
8. The present appellant in his statement denied the case of the prosecu--tion and stated that he had no knowledge of the incident. He stated that Abdul Rehman's and Abdul Rauf had enmity with him on account of the matrimonial affairs and Abdul Rehman's even previously had filed a false injury case against him. He stated that they had 'learnt that there was a quarrel between Mohammad deceased and P. W. Abdul Rehman's. He further stated that P. Ws. Mohammad Hussain and Mohammad are friends of Abdul Rehman's as they are workers in the same party. He further asserted that Mohammad resides 8 miles away from the scene of offence and Mohammad Hussain resides half mile from the vardat.
9. The learned counsel Mr. Imam Ali Kazi, who appeared for the appellants as a brief holder of Mr. Imdad Ali Agha, Advocate argued that in view of the fact that the injured Abdul Rehman's and complainant Rauf had made exaggeration by involving accused Ismail and accused Mohammad falsely in the case, therefore, their statements should be excluded from considerations. The same cannot however be done. However, whatever exaggerations they had made have already been taken note of by the trial Judge and on account of this exaggeration accused Ismail was acquitted.
10. Of course by that time accused Mohammad had died and, therefore, no order' could be passed in respect of him. It is a general tendency in this country that the injured parties exaggerate the names of their assailants and, therefore, one has to sift grain from the chaff instead of discarding the whole evidence. In this case the exaggeration in respect of Ismail and Mohammad has to be excluded and the rest of the statements of the injured Abdul Rehman's and complainant Abdul Rauf can be acted upon to the extent of the injury caused by Edan as the same is fully supported by Mohammad Hussain who is a shopkeeper in the same Shahibazar where the incident took place. It is also supported by Mohammad who, although residing 8 miles away from the Bazar had come there 'and he was the person who had informed complainant Rauf about the incident.
11. Mr. Imam Ali Kazi submitted that P. W. Mohammad Hussain and Mohammad did not provide a sufficient corroboration as they have not given proper description of the injuries inflicted upon the injured. I do not agree with him. It is not necessary that every P. W. Must give the details of every injury. It is sufficient that they had seen Edan causing injuries upon Abdul Rehman's. It was a day- light case and the identification was, therefore, not in doubt. I cannot doubt the presence of Mohammad Hussain and Mohammad at the place of occurrence at the time of incident as the incident has taken place after 5 p.m. On 2nd March, 1972 and the injured has been examined by the Doctor at 6 p.m. On the same day and the injuries were found only one hour old. The F. I. R. Was filed at 6-15 p.m. Which shows that no time was lost in filing the F. I. R. As the alleged incident is described in the F. I. R. To have taken place at 5-30 p.m. Since the names of P. Ws. Mohammad Hussain and Mohammad are mentioned in the F. I. R. Therefore, their presence at the scene of offence can hardly be open to exception as it was impossible for P. W. Mohammad to be brought from a distance of 3 miles if he was not actually present at that time and had in fact reported the matter to the complainant who filed the F. I. R.
12. I am therefore, convinced that Mohammad Hussain and Mohammad do provide the necessary corroboration to the statement of the injured in respect of the liability of Edan, as the person having caused hatchet injuries on the head of Abdul Rehman's which was found to be grievous.
13. Mr. Kazi also argued that there was no intention to cause death and, therefore, the conviction should not have been under section 307, P. P. C. I do not agree with him as according to me if a person inflicted sharp sided hatchet blow on the head of the victim and cuts the bone and the injury is 4' x 2" bone deep then the only inference possible is that he either intended to cause the death or at least had the knowledge that death would be the result of such injury. Hatchet is a deadly weapon and to hit a human being with sharp side of such a weapon on a vulnerable and sensitive part of the human body like head is a very dangerous act and involves serious consequences. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as the sentence under section 307, P. P. C. Is only 3 years and is, therefore, not harsh. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.