1. This is a Criminal Revision. Nine petitioners have been convicted initially under section 307/.149, P. P.
2. C. And each of them was sentenced to three years' R. I. Plus fine of Rs. 500 as well as to pay compensation amounting to Rs.300. Each of them was likewise convicted under sec--tion 148, P. P.
3. C. And sentenced to one year's R. I. Each of them was also convicted under section 452, P. P. C. And sentenced to one year's R. I. Plus fine of Rs.500. Ghulam Sarwar and Dosa petitioners were, in addition, convicted under section 354, P. P. C. And each of them was sentenced to fine of Rs. 500.
4. The sentences of imprisonment awarded to all of them were ordered to run concurrently. The original judgment was passed by Magistrate section 30 on 13.6-1981. This judgment was challenged in appeal and the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang vide his judgment dated 14-12-1981 maintained and modified their convictions and sentences as follows "Ghulam Sarwar, Dosa and Hasan petitioners were convicted under section 307/149, P. P. C. For murderous assault on Muhammad Bakhsh (P. W. 7), Muhammad Sharif (P. W. 5) and Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 6) and each of them was sentenced to three years' R. I. Plus compensation of Rs.
500. The rest of the six petitioners were also convicted under section 307/149, P. P. C. But their sentence was reduced to one year's R. I. Each plus compensation of Rs. 500. Their conviction and sentence under section 148, P. P. C. Were maintained. Similarly, the conviction and sentence awarded to Ghulam Sarwar and Dosa petitioners under section 354, P. P. C. Were maintained but the conviction and sentence awarded to all of them under sec--tion 452, P. P. C. Were set aside.
5. Ghulam Sarwar and Dosa petitioners were aimed with hatchets and the rest of them 'were stated to be armed with sobs. The eye-witnesses in the instant case are Muhammad Latif P. W. 1, complainant, Khan P. W. 2, Muhammad P. W. 3, Ramzan P. W. 4, Muhammad Sharif P. W. 5 (injured), Ghulam Muhammad P. W. 6 (injured) and Muhammad Bakhsh P. W. 7 (injured). Mst. Fateh Bibi (P.
6. W. 11) is the person for whom the incident appears to have taken place. According to the prosecution version, the injured persons on the complainant side are three, namely; Muhammad Sharif, Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Bakhsh P. Ws. Two of the members of the accused party were also injured in the course of occurrence and they are Roshan and Shahab Ali petitioners. According to the prosecution version Muhammad Sharif P. W. Had three injuries on his person, one grievous and two simple. The grievous injury on his person was attributed to Dosa petitioner who is stated to have given a hatchet blow which fell on the head of this witness. Two simple injuries on his person were attributed to Roshan and Mehru petitioners. Ghulam Muhammad P. W. Also sustained three injuries in the instant case which were simple in nature and these had been attributed to Sultan, Shahab Ali and Rana petitioners Muhammad Bakhsh P. W. Had likewise sustained three injuries out of which two were grievous and one simple. The simple injury was attributed to Ali petitioner. One of the grievous injuries on his head was attributed to Ghulam Sarwar petitioner, whereas the other grievous injury on his hand was attributed to Hasan petitioner.
7. Thus, each of the nine accused-petitioners is stated to have caused one injury each to Muhammad Sharif, Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Bakhsh P. Ws. Who in all on the basis of three injuries each have received nine injuries. It was argued by learned counsel that the conviction of all the petitioners under section 307/149, P. P. C. In the circumstances, was not proper as none of the victims had sustained an injury which was dangerous to life and besides that it could also not be established on the record that the accused party had pre-planned attempted murder on any of the victims. It was next submitted that out of the nine injuries sustained by the three victims, there were only three grievous injuries received which were attributed to Dosa, Ghulam Sarwar and Hasan petitioners, whereas the rest of them were stated to have caused only six simple injuries, one each, and as a result of having caused one simple injury each, their conviction under section 307/149, P. P. C. Was not proper. They could have at the most been convicted under section 323/1.49, P. P. C. It was next argued that the F. I. R. Was lodged after a delay of seven days. It was then argued that the version given by the eye-witnesses as well as the victims themselves was not consistent with the version of the occurrence given by Muhammad Latif P. W., complainant. Even the statement of Muhammad Latif P. W., complainant was in conflict with the F. I. R. In other words, the version given in the F. I. R., according to learned counsel, was in conflict with the subsequent statement of Muhammad Latif P. W. Made before the trial Court and his statement was likewise in conflict with the statements of the other three witnesses. The argument is that the ocular testimony provides a different version of the occurrence than the one given in the F. I. R. Or even that given by Muhammad Latif P. W. It was also argued that this version was likewise in conflict with the medical evidence. It was submitted that two of the petitioners, namely, Roshan and Shahab Ali, were themselves injured in the course of the occurrence at the hands of the complainant party. They were medically examined but their injuries had been suppressed by the complainant side. The following petitioners who were attributed simple injuries were admitted to bail by me vide my order dated 19-5-1982. These are Roshan, Sultan, Shahab Ali, Rana, Ali and Mehru. The remaining three petitioners, namely, Ghulam Sarwar, Dosa and Hasan were attributed one grievous injury each.
8. Ghulam Sarwar petitioner is stated to have given a hatchet blow which fell on the head of Muhammad Bakhsh P. W. Dosa petitioner is stated to have given a hatchet blow which fell on the head of Muhammad Sharif P. W. And Hasan petitioner is stated to have given a stick blow which fell on the back of right hand of Muhammad Bakhah P. W; Ghulam Sarwar and Dosa petitioners had used sharp-edged weapons like hatchets and the grievous injuries attributed to them were on the vital parts of the P. Ws. (heads). Hasan petitioner had used sots and the grievous injury attributed to him was not on the vital part (hand). Consequently by my subsequent order dated 2-6-1982 even Hasan petitioner was admitted to bail. In respect of Ghulam Sarwar and Dose petitioners, they were not allowed bail but I ordered that learned counsel may move an application for bail of Ghulam Sarwar and Dosa petitioners if the main revision petition could not be fixed for hearing Within the statutory period. Learned counsel has now moved this application for suspension of sentence of these petitioners for the reason that the total sentence of imprisonment awarded in the instant case being three years' R. I., the main criminal revision should be disposed of as only 14 months' sentence had been left in the case of Ghulam Sarwar and Dose Petitioners. It is also submitted that the statutory period in such a case for hearing the appeal/revision is six months. Be that 'as it may, instead of passing any order on the application for suspension of sentence of these petitioners, the main criminal revision can be disposed of today as learned counsel for the State is present and takes notice of the same and it is not a lengthy matter. It is with this background that I have proceeded to dispose of the main criminal revision.
2. In the light of what has been discussed above, it is evident that the incident took place in the form of a sudden flare-up. The background is that the petitioners had suspected that Ahmad, real brother of Mst. Fateh Bibi P. W., had illicit relations with Mst. Pathani, real sister of Ghulam Sarwar petitioner, and that to avenge this insult, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and had assaulted Mst. Fateh Bibi P. W. The story given by the prosecution is that the petitioners armed with deadly weapons came to the house of Mst. Fateh Bibi P. W. While she was washing clothes on a water-- pump. Ghulam Sarwar and Dosa petitioners caught hold of her and dragged her away from the water-pump. On her alarm, Muhammad Sharif, Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Bakhsh P. Ws. Carne to the spot and attempted to intervene. This led to a scuffle between the two sides and injuries were received as have been described above. It may be noted that in the F. I. R.
9. The injuries received by the members of the accused party have been suppressed. Now the only question, which requires determination is, if it was a sudden fight between the parties, then each of them would be liable for his own act. Six of the nine petitioners in the instant case, namely, Roshan Sultan, Shahab Ali, Rana, Ali and Mehru, are stated to have caused only one simple injury each to three of the P. Ws. Therefore, it was not proper to convict and sentence them under section 307/149, P. P. C. Similarly since it was a sudden flare-up, the conviction and sentence under section 148, P. P.
10. C. Also were not proper. Each of the aforesaid six petitioners, could be convicted and sentenced only under section 323, P. P. C.
11. In the light of this discussion, the conviction and sentence awarded to Roshan, Sultan, Shahab Ali, Rana, Ali and Mehru petitioners under sec--tion 307/149, P. P. C. And under section 148, P. P. C. Are hereby set aside and each of them is instead convicted under section 323, P. P. C. And A sentenced to the imprisonment which they have already under-one. Each of the aforesaid petitioners is on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
12. Now I take up the case of Hasan petitioner. Hasan petitioner (lid not receive any injury in the course of occurrence (the members of the accused party who received injuries were Roshan and Shahab Ali). 1t is stated that he was armed with a stick and he gave a stick blow which fell on the right hand of Muhammad Bakhsh P. W. And the injury attributed to him is grievous, although it is on a non-vital part. 11 was argued by learned counsel that Hasan petitioner has also been convicted and sentenced under section 307/149, P. P. C. As well as under section 148, P. P. C. And that his conviction as well as sentence under the aforesaid sections were not proper. He could have at the most been convicted and sentenced under section 325, p. p. C. There is force in the argument of learned counsel. I set aside the conviction as well as the sentence awarded to Hasan petitioner under section 307/149, P. P. C. As well as under section 148, P. P. C. And instead convict him under section 325, P. P. C. And sentence him to imprisonment which he has already undergone plus fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo two months' R.
1. He is already on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged.
13. If he pays up fine of Rs. 500, it should be paid to Muhammad Bakhsh P. W. As compensation. In case he does not pay up the fine to be paid as compensation to Muhammad Bakhsh P. W., he should be taken into custody. By the police to undergo the sentence of two months' R. I. In lieu thereof.
14. Now I turn to the case of Ghulam Sarwar and Dosa petitioners. They both were armed with hatchets and they have caused one grievous injury each on the heads of Muhammad Bakhsh and Muhammad Sharif P. Ws. Learned counsel argues that there was no justification also of convicting and sentencing them under sections 307/149, P. P. C. As well as under section 148, P. P. C. The reasoning is the: the murderous assault was not pre-planned and that whatever had happened a was in the form of a sudden flare-up. It may be noted that Ghulam Sarwar and Dosa petitioners have also been convicted under section 354, P. P. C. And were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each or in default to undergo three months' R. I. It was argued on their behalf that as grievous injuries were attributed to them on vital parts, they could have been at the most convicted and sentenced under section 326, P. P. C. And not under section 307/149, P. P. C. I have heard learned counsel. In my view the conviction as well as sentence awarded to Ghulam Sarwar and Dosa petitioners under section 354, P. P. C. Were quite proper and they are accordingly maintained. But I set aside the conviction as well as sentence awarded to each of them under section 307/149, P. P.
15. C. As well as under section 148, P. P. C. And instead convict each G of them under section 326, P. P.
16. C. And sentence each of them to two years' R.I. Plus fine of Rs. 500 or in default thereof to undergo two months' R. I. If the fine is realized from them, it should be paid in equal shares to Muhammad Bakhsh and Muhammad Sharif P. Ws.
17. The Criminal Revision is accepted to this extent.