Ghulam Muhammad alias Ghulamo appellant was tried along with Mohammad Latif alias Teefa under sections 302 and 307, P. P. C. For causing the death of Mohammad Sae2d and injuries to Khalid Abbas P. W. The allegations were that while Mohammad Latif held Saeed deceased in a Joppha Ghulam Mohammad gave him a blow with chhuri. Khalid Abbas P. W. Also received an injury at the hands of Ghulam Mohammad appellant when Khalid Abbas tried to intervene. Sh.
Azhar Hafeez, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore who tried the appellant vide his judgment dated 19th March, 1980 acquitted Mohammad Latif and convicted Ghulam Mohammad for two counts of an offence under section 307; .P. P. C. For causing injuries to Saeed deceased and the appellant was awarded a sentence of 10 years' R. I. And a fine of Rs. 2,000 or to suffer imprisonment for a period of six months. Half of the fine if realised is to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. For the injuries caused to Khalid Abbas the appellant has been awarded the sentence of 7 years' R. I. And a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer R. I. For 3 months. Half of the fine if realised is to be paid to Khalid Abbas P. W. The two sentences are concurrent. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore.
2. The allegations against the appellant were that on account of a dispute of payment of some amount which was due, the appellant with the help of his companion caused injuries to the deceased when he met him while both the sides were proceeding for attending the mela known as Bandook Sain Mela. The occurrence took place on 24th July, 1979 at about 8-30 p.m. And the F.I.R.
Was got recorded at Police Station, Shahdara the same day at 9-45 p.m. By Khalid Abbas the injured P. W. Saeed deceased was admitted to the hospital where he died after 85 days of the occurrence. The post-mortem report revealed that the surgical wound had become septic and the back had septic bed-sores. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no connection between the injury and the death and, therefore, the charge under section 302, P P. C. Was thrown out.
3. Out of the two eye-witnesses produced, the trial Court rejected the evidence of Mohammad Rafi.
The evidence of motive was also not believed by the Court. Chhuri P. 7 which was recovered at the instance of the appellant was held to be of no consequence as it was not of incriminating nature.
The medical evidence did not even reveal that the injury caused was grievous or simple. All that has been said is that the injury was kept under observation. There was a single injury on the person of Saeed deceased and another single injury on the person of Khalid Abbas P. W. 10.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the conviction of the appellant is based merely on the testimony of Khalid Abbas P. W.
10. The learned counsel is of the view that Khalid Abbas is not a reliable person. Khalid Abbas himself admitted that he was involved in a theft case. The learned counsel has also argued that this being a night time occurrence, the question of identity of the appellant would also be material. It is contended by the learned counsel that since the appellant was not previously known to Khalid Abbas P. W,there was a distinct possibility of a witness being confused of the identity of the appellant. It has been suggested by the learned counsel that the occurrence may have taken place in the crowded mela and the appellant has been hauled up merely for reasons of suspicion.
5. The suggestion of the learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence may have taken place in the crowded mela is nothing more than a conjecture as there is no evidence that can support this suggestion. As regards the identity of the assailant itself, if the assailant was in such a close proximity of the victim that he actually caused injuries to the victim, the identification of the assailant by the victim can easily be assumed barring of course a situation where the victim had been unconscious. Khalid Abbas was injured during the course of occurrence. The doctor is of the opinion that injury on his person cannot be self-suffered as the injury was on the abdomen which is a vital part. Khalid Abbas has admitted that he is involved in a theft case but that by itself would not disqualify him to be a competent witness. The existence of an injury on his person coupled with the fact that he has no previous enmity with the appellant is sufficient for the evidence of Khalid Abbas to be relied on. To say that the appellant has not caused injury to Saeed deceased or Khalid Abbas P. W. Can, therefore, be of no avail.
6. The learned counsel has also argued that this is not a case of an offence under section 307, P. P.
C. As the two victims received only one injury each. There is a lot of force in this argument particularly whey the injury was not repeated even when there was no effective opposition. This means that there was no intention to kill. The doctor at no stage has given the opinion that the injury was grievous or even dangerous. He kept it under observation. Without any specific opinion to the contrary the injury will have to be read as simple. Under these circumstances an offence under section 307 cannot be made out. The conviction for each of the two counts is, therefore, altered from 307 to 324, P. P. C. The maximum sentence provided for under section 324, P. P. C. Is 3 years and fine. The appellant has already suffered a sentence of a year and 7 months apart from a year spent in prison as an under-trial prisoner. He is, therefore, sentenced to imprisonment which he has already undergone. The sentence of fine of Rs. 2.000 in respect of injury to Saeed deceased and Rs. 1,000 in respect of injury to Khalid Abbas is, however, maintained under section 324, P. P. C.
Half of the fine if realised shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased and half of the fine of Rs. 1,000 if realised shall be paid to the injured witness Khalid Abbas. In default the appellant shall suffer imprisonment for six months' R. I. And three months' R. I. Respectively. With these observations the appeal is disposed of.