This Criminal suo motu Reference arises out of the following facts.
1. The accused Allah Bachayo was sent up to stand trial under section 302, P. P. C. Before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sanghar who after his trial in the Sessions Case No. 64 of 1978, came to conclusion that he was guilty of offence under section 326, P. P. C. He therefore by his judgment dated 23rd February, 1980 convicted him as such and sentenced him to suffer R. I. For six months considering his detention as under-trial prisoner for a period of twenty months. The accused did not prefer any appeal against his conviction and sentence. The case however was examined by this Court under section 439, Cr. P. C. And in consequence thereof a notice for enhancement of sentence was issued to the accused as the sentence awarded to him under section 326, P. P. C. Was inadequate under the circumstances of the case.
2. The prosecution case against the accused Allah Bachayo is that he inflicted a hatchet blow on his father Ayoob who asked him for weeding of `chilli' crop in his lands. But he refused and his father abused him on account of it. The incident was witnessed by Haji, his son Mitho and others. Ayoob was removed to his house where he was treated privately but no report was lodged with Police.
Ayoob however died after five days and it was only after his death when the complainant Paryo lodged his F. I. R. On 26-6-1978 at Police Station, Shahdadpur of district Sanghar.
3. That A. S. I. Abdur Rehman, Incharge of the Police Station recorded his F. I. R. (Exh. 9) and proceeded to the house of the deceased along with the complainant where he saw the dead body of Ayoob in presence of Allah Watio and Qasim. He prepared such inquest report Exh. 12 and prepared Mashirnama Exh.
13. He found no blood there. He then sent the dead body for post- mortem examination to Medical Officer, Shahdadpur through H. C. Anwar. He examined Achar, Allah Watio, Muhammad Ashraf, Safar Muhammad and Mst. Wadhul on 27-6-1978. He thereafter visited the scene of offence which was situated in the lands of Qasim. He secured blood--stained earth and a cap from there, and prepared such Mashirnama Exh. 15 in presence of Mashirs Ali Nawaz and Qasim. The S. H. O. Shahdadpur, Salimullah thereafter took the investigation in his own hands and arrested the accused on the same day and prepared such Mashirnama Exh. 23 in presence of mashirs Rasool Bux and Mubarak. He also secured a washed blood-stained hatchet from the accused who voluntarily produced it from combine of his house. Such Mashirnama Exh. 20 was prepared by him. The accused was thereafter challaned to stand trial for the offence under sec--tion 302, P. P. C.
4. The prosecution case is mainly based on the occular testimony of P. Ws. Mitho and Haji, corroborative evidence of P. Ws. Ali Nawaz and the complainant Paryo and the Medical evidence.
5. The accused has denied all the allegations. He has further stated that his father was a mental patient who had told him to work in the field which he refused. His father therefore inflicted a blow from back side of his hatchet on him. He started running away but his father caught hold of him and he thought that his father had lost mental balance and struggled to extricate on which his father fell down and received a hatchet-injury from his own hatchet. He also stated that P. W. Mitho owed money to his father and when he demanded it, be became his enemy and involved him in this false case. He has also examined Safar D. W. 1 in his defence.
6. There is no doubt that the deceased Ayoob died as a result of complications of a hatchet-injury on his head. Dr. Muhammad Qasim P.W. 1 who performed the autopsy on his dead body has stated that the death in his opinion was due to shock, haemorheage and infection consequent upon the injury caused by a sharp cutting weapon such as a hatchet. He has also stated that the injury was not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature if treated properly but no proper treatment was given in case of Ayoob.
7. The questions therefore for determination are as to what offences have been committed by the accused and if the sentence awarded to him was inadequate ?
8. I have heard the accused who has been produced from the jail and also Mr. A. A. Dareshani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. I have carefully examined the evidence on record. The testimony of P. Ws. Mitho and Haji who arc eye-witnesses has been corroborated by Ali Nawaz, and the complainant Paryo. The medical evidence supports the ocular as well as corroborative versions of the P. Ws. The learned Sessions Judge has believed the prosecution version and has come to conclusion that it was accused Allah Bachayo who inflicted injury to the deceased Ayoob. He has therefore rightly convicted him under section 326, P. P. C. Under the, circumstances of the case. The only point which now remains to be con--sidered is in respect of the sentence. The offence under section 326 is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore the sentence awarded to him is not only inadequate but improper too. The learned counsel for the State is also of thisview, who has pressed for enhancement of the sentence.
After careful consideration of the evidence and the circumstances under which the accused inflicted injury toAyoob the deceased was no less a person than his father, I feel that he ha been awarded a lenient sentence. After all, the injury though supplement by other factors has resulted in death of the father of the accused. The accused has undoubtedly remained in custody as an under-trial prisoner for period of one year and eight months. Therefore considering his detention in terms of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. I enhance his sentence to 2 years an 6 months R.I. And also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 only and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo further R. I. For six months. The suo motu reference was disposed of accordingly by a short order earlier and these are the reasons for it.