' Manzoor (30) and Humayun (50) petitioners alongwith Mehra,. Noora and Talib (absconded during trial) were tried for having murderously assaulted Zulifqar. On 21st January, 1981 Mansoor and Humayun were convicted under section 326/314, P.P.C. And sentenced to four years' R. I. Each and to a fine of Rs, 1,000 each in default to undergo six months R. I. Further Rs,1,000 was awarded as compensation to Zulifqar, injured. In default of payment of compensation to further suffer six months' R.I. Mehra and Noora were acquitted. The convicts went up in appeal and on 26th September, 1982 learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed their appeal. Hence this revision.
2. Mst. Halima daughter of Shahabal eloped with Manzoor, petitioner.
' By the good offices of Zulfiqar she was restored to her parents. For this reason, the accused bore a grudge against him. According to the prosecution on 5th December, 1973 at Peshiwela, Zulfiqar accompanied by his parents namely P.W.2 Mst. Roshani (his mother) P.W.4 Noor Muhammad (his father) alongwith P.W.3 Khadim and Muhammad Ali (not produced) were on their way to the village after having attended the Court at Faisalabad. On the way Zulifqar went ahead on his cycle.
After sometime, the remaining witnesses heard an alarm coming from Sirkandas field. They reached there and saw that Manzoor and Talib (absconder) tied up Zulfiqar his hands with his turban and thereafter, Manzoor and Talib inflicted hatchet blows on his legs. Humayun was present there with a. 12 bore gun. Mehra incited him to shoot but Manzoor and Talib insisted that Zulfiqar should be subjected to slow death by torture. Mst. Roshnai and other witnesses begged of the accused to let go Zulifqar upon which the accused left. The matter was reported at Police Station Chiniot the same evening at 9-45 p.m. At a distance of 14 miles from the place of 'occurrence.
3. The same day P.W.1 Dr. Akhtar Hussain Bokhari Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Chiniot medically examined Zulfiqar and found an incised wound on the left lower leg cutting the fabula through and through, another incised wound on the left lower leg cutting tibia bone through and through and third one on his right lower leg which fractured the bone.
4. Manzoor and Talib were arrested and they got recovered hatchets P.1 and P.2 which were taken into possession by the police on the 14th December, 1973. After completing the investigation, the accused were sent up for trial.
5. The defence case is that Talib (absconder) had got a case registered against one Ahmad brother-in-law of Zulfiqar and Manzoor his cousin for the offence under section 325, P.P.C. And in order to pressurize the accused the present case has been concocted. No defence was led.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Humayun was said to have been armed with gun which he never used. Moreover, in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. None of the witnesses including the injured has ascribed the role which is now being attributed to Humayun.
Further, that no recovery has been effected from Hyumayun. I have considered the matter. There is force in this submission. I find that Humayun was not attributed an active role in the F.I.R. In their statements under section 161, Cr. P.C. The role ascribed to him was in fact attributed to his brother Mahun who was though interrogated at one stage during the investigation but not challaned, Humayun's name was not mentioned. Under these circumstances Humayun is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge. He shall be discharged from his bail bonds.
6. In so far as Manzoor is concerned he is consistently ascribed the role of having inflicted hatchet injuries to Zulfiqar on his legs. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that according to the injured he had gone about 11 miles ahead from others when he was attacked by the accused in the Sirkanda field which was of man's height, therefore, the witnesses could not have seen the occurrence which fact was also admitted by the injured. I have considered this aspect of the matter. It is note: worthy that in the statement of the injured it was alleged that he was overpowered tied up and thereafter injured with hatchets. This process would have consumed some time. Moreover, the assessm ent of distance may not be exact. The parents of the injured have supported his statement that they had seen Manzoor inflicting hatchet blows to Zulfiqar.
However, the injured person is consistent about the participation of Manzoor with whom the motive has also been alleged. Under these circumstances I am of the view that the prosecution case is satisfactorily proved against him. His conviction is, therefore, maintained. While considering the question of sentence learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that since Talib remained an absconder, therefore, the case was delayed. It was, therefore, no fault of the prosecution. I am of the view that it was also no fault of the co-accused. Undoubtedly it was a protracted trial. Person accused also remained for sometime in custody before trial. Taking these two circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that the sentence already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice. His sentence of fine is maintained with the direction that the fine if realized shall also be paid as compensation to the injured besides the compensation of Rs,1,000 which is also to be paid in addition to the fine. So, all Rs,2,000I (two housand) shall be paid to injured P.W. Zulfiqar.
' .