Khalid, Safdar, Arfan, Imran and Mubashir were tried for having caused injuries to Bashir. On 3rd May, 1982 Ch. Ghulam Nabi, Magistrate Ist Class, Sargodha convicted the five accused under sections 325, 342 read with section 149 and section 148, P. P. C. And sentenced them to two years' R.
I. And to a fine of Rs. 1,000 each under section 325/149, P. P. C., to six months' R. I. Under section 148, P.
P. C. And to six months' R. I. Under section 342/149, P. P. C. In default of payment of fine they were to undergo three months' S. I. Each. Half of the fine, if realized, was ordered to be paid to the injured as compensation. In appeal on 26th June, 1982, Mr. Munir Ahmad Sheikh, Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, altered the conviction from under section 325, P. P. C. To section 323, P. P. C. And reduced their sentence to nine months' R. I. Each and a fine of Rs. 200 each, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months' R. I. He further ordered the appellants to pay Rs. 200 each as compensation under section 541-A, Cr. P. C. And in default of payment of compensation to undergo two months' R.
I. Each further. However, he maintained their conviction and sentences under sections 148 and 352/149, P. P. C. The petitioners have come up in revision.
2. Motive for the crime in this case was that P.W. 3 Bashir (injured) was a witness in a case against Imran, accused. The five accused who are cousins inter se stopped him from giving evidence, since he did not agree therefore on 5th March, 1981 at about deegarwela, he was attacked by them in a field where he was working. The accused were said to be armed with three choa rambas and a stick with which they beat up Bashir who fell down and was thereafter dragged with a rope which was put around his neck by Irfan accused. He was dragged up to their Dera. In the meanwhile P.Ws.
Muhammad Sadiq, Muhammad Malik, Rashid Ahmad and Rashid Ahmad son of Muhammad Shafi intervened and rescued him. Bashir went to the Civil Hospital, Baghtanwala with Sadiq P.W. But as the doctor was not available, therefore, the following day, he first got himself medically examined at 10 a.m. After obtaining the medico-legal report, he then went to the police station and made report Exh. P.J. There at 11 a.m. P. W. 1 Dr. Qutab Shah Hamdani, M.C. Bhagtanwala, observed five injuries on the person of Bashir, two of his injuries were on the neck, two on the arms and one on the leg. The contusion at this left forearm was got EX-rayed which was declared grievous but as the report of the radiologist was not proved at the trial, therefore, the lower appellate Court altered the convic--tion to one under section 323, P.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was a considerable delay in making the report which was not explained in the F.I.R. And that a flimsy explanation was given at the trial. It was next contended that besides the close association of the eye-witnesses with the injured, they were also inimical towards the accused.
4. I have considered the submissions. The occurrence took place at Deegarwela on 5th March, 1981, but the report was made at 11 a.m. On 6th March, 1981. Undoubtedly, there is no explanation in the F.I.R. Of this delay in making the report. The complainant tried to explain it away at the trial, by saying that since he could not obtain the medico-legal report on 5th March, 1981, therefore, after securing the same, the next morning he went to the police station for report. If the doctor was not available on 5th March, 1981, the witness could have gone to the police station which was close-by; but neither he nor Sadiq went there. It may be mentioned at the outset that in this revision I need not go into the details of the evidence of the interested witnesses because the Courts below have come to the conclusion that since P. W. 7 Abdul Malik was a disinterested witness and had supported the statements of the interested witnesses, therefore, the prosecution case was satisfactorily proved. Under these circumstances, the question for determination would be whether the evidence of P.W. 7 Abdul Malik per se was good evidence. In this regard it may be mentioned here that his evidence was in conflict with the medical evidence. Like the interested witness Abdul Malik also said that when Bashir had fallen down, he was thereafter, dragged with a rope which was put around his neck. If this was so then there would have been scratches on his body indicating the dragging. The injuries on the arms and the leg of Bashir have been specifically attributed to each accused. These could, therefore, not be the result of dragging. Even otherwise, these are contusion marks and not the result of dragging. It would thus follow that in all probability he was not dragged all the way. The injuries on his neck per se are not an indication of dragging because he was said to have been dragged while he lay on the ground. Bashir on his own showing had a kassi with him with which he was working. Strangely enough, he did not use it in his defence.
Moreover, there being previous litigation and strained relations between the victim and the accused; would under these circumst--ances the accused ask Bashir not to give evidence in a case against one of the accused. This does not appeal to reason. It may also be added here that Abdul Malik admitted that Rashid, P.W. Belonged to his "beratherf". As there was a party faction in the village, therefore, to say that Abdul Malik was not connected with other witnesses was not factually correct. It is also noteworthy that three choa rambas were said to have been used in the attack. The agriculture implement has a sharp-edged iron part and can cause an incised wound.
But there is no sharp-edged weapon injury to Bashir nor the witnesses including Abdul Malik made it clear as to with which part of this implement Bashir was attacked. Keeping in view the strained relations between the victim and the accused had they been armed with the type of weapons ascribed to them, they would have under the circumstances caused a much greater harm.
4. In his effort to disassociate himself with the complainant party, P.W. Abdul Malik said under cross examination that he never made any statement before the police in this case. His evidence to my mind for reasons mentioned above was not better than the evidence of the interested B witnesses,.
I therefore, accept the revision petition, setting aside the conviction and sentences of the petitioners, and acquit them of the charges. They shall stand discharged of their bail bonds.