This revision petition has been brought from a judgment, dated 14-7-1982 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, confirming the conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court i. e. Four years' R. I. And a fine of Rs, 5,000 or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. For six months, under section 307, P. P. C.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that injured Adalat Ali (P. W. 2) reprimanded the petitioner for having abused his sister, namely, Kalsum. The petitioner is otherwise the first cousin of the injured. It is stated that at the time the petitioner was being reprimanded he took out a knife from the fold of his Shall war and dealt with one blow on the right side of Adalat Ali P. W.'s chest whereby he fell down and on an alarm raised by the complainant he was rescued by the complainant namely, Mst. Roshan Bibi (P. W. 1), Zubair (P. W. 3) and one Zulfiqar. Adalat Ali was examined on the same day towards 11.30 a.m. By Dr. Ahmad Saeed (P. W. 5) who observed an incised wound 5.5 c.m x2 cm. x 3 c.m. Deep on the front of right side of chest, 2 cm. Inner and above the right nipple. On opening the wound there was a found a profused bleeding and a corresponding cut on the shirt. A note was added to the medical report that the injured was in a serious shock and the speed of respiration was 30 p. m. And the beat of the pulse was at the rate of 110 p. m., otherwise it was feeble. After getting X-ray report the injury so caused was declared as grievous and the reason for declaring it as grievous was that the X-ray showed the collection of blood in the pleural cavity (Haemothemo).
The petitioner was arrested, on 20-12-81. At the same time he was found possessing knife A. 1, which was recovered by the Investigating Officer in the presence of recovery witnesses, namely Zulfiqar Alt and Muhammad Ashraf.
3. The prosecutioq substantiated its case by adducing the evidence of the above said witnesses including that of Ghulam Mustafa Shah A.S.I. Investigating Officer.
4. The petitioner in his examination under section 342, Cr. P.C. Denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded that in fact the complainant, the mother of the injured, wanted the petitioner to divorce her daughter and on his refusal to do so, he was involved in this false case. The petitioner produced Abdul Wahid D. W. 1 in his defence who deposed that the petitioner was falsely involved in this case as he had refused to divorce Mst. Kalsum, sister of the injured P. W.
5. The learned trial Court vide its judgment, dated 10-6-1982 concluded the case in conviction of the petitioner by awarding four years' R. I. And a fine of Rs, 5,000 or in default thereof to undergo further six months' R. I. Under section 307, P. P. C. The petitioner aggrieved therefrom filed an appeal which as mentioned above, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.
6. This revision petition was admitted only on the point of sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that the case does not fall under section 307, P. P. C. As only one blow was dealt with. Had there been any intention to kill as a matter of course the blow would have been repeated. Next he has contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the injury resultantly caused was grievous. According to him the injury was declared by the doctor as grievous simply because there was profuse bleeding and the blood bad collected in the capital region. The description of the injury does not fall in the category of injuries as mentioned under section 320, P. P. C. And as to the fact that the petition r remained disabled from pursuing his ordinary pursuit, the evidence is lacking because there is the solitary statement of the injured that he remained confined in the hospital approximately for a period of four months. The prosecution ought to have led apart from the statement of this witness some substantive evidence which could have been arranged 'for after consulting the registers of the hospital concerned. To throw further light as to the nature of the injury and the applicability of section 320, P. P. C, he has relied upon Abdur Rashid v. The State In this case the injured remained confined in the hospital for thirty-three days and it was observed that the mere fact of the injured remaining for thirty-three days in the hospital by itself does not prove the disablement to pursue the ordinary vocation. An importance was not attached to the statement of the complainant because there was no medical support for that. In Abdul Latif v. The State the injury subject to examination was a nerve injury which was described bleeding as well, so it was observed that the injury to the nerve was not covered by any one of the eight conditions which was necessary in order to designate an injury as grievous. In Ali Hussain v. The State and 3 others it was held as to a solitary knife blow having been aimed at the lower part of the victim's abdomen, that the mere fact a nerve had been cut resulting thereby into bleeding which if had not been stopped would have otherwise proved fatal, did not change the nature of the injury from simple to grievous, He has next relied upon Sohrab and another v. The State wherein it was held that unless the injury described had fallen under section 320, P. P. C. The injury could not be regarded as grievous. The learned counsel for the petitioner has concluded his submissions by submitting that this case as to the conviction of the petitioner falls under section 324, P. P. C. And not under section 307 or 326, P. P. C. So in these circumstances according to him, the sentence already undergone by the petitioner is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
7. The learned counsel for the State in reply has submitted that the Courts below have already dealt with the case in a lenient manner other- wise according to the facts of the case the petitioner deserved heavier offence. As to the nature of the injury he has submitted that it had been described as grievous after the X-ray and the symptoms accompanying the injury were given in the X-ray report according to which the injury could only be designated as grievous and not simple. So far as the satisfaction of section 320, P. P. C. Is concerned the learned counsel for the State has relied upon the statement of the injured who remained confined in the hospital near about for four months. This statement as it appears in the evidence if the injured is believed as1 2 3 4 truthful as he has been by both the-Courts below, can be received and acted upon as evidence as to the fact of confinement. It is further added that the petitioner had not taken trouble to suggest to the witness that he was confined to the hospital for the period lesser than what he stated. He has concluded his submissions by lastly submitting that before the occurrence there was an enmity due to the turn of water between the injured and the petitioner.
8. So far as the applicability of section 307, P. II. C. Is concerned, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the blow was not repeated, that is sufficient to indicate that he had no intention to kill the injured and as is obvious from the circumstances that the blow was given at the spur of the moment prompted by the act of reprimanding the petitioner, but I do not agree with the learned counsel as to the nature of the injury when the decisions cited by him speak of the injuries peculiar to the cases which were under examination. In this case as is mentioned above the injury was on the right side of the chest which resulted in profuse bleeding and thereby much of blood had collected in the pleural cavity where regarding such a vital part there happen to be profuse bleeding then the injury on the ground of profuse bleeding in respect, with a vital organ can be classed as a hurt endangering the life and when the doctor expressed himself as to the injury that it was grievous what he precisely meant was that it was dangerous to life, because it was accompanied by profuse bleeding, therefore, this injury falls under clause (8) of section 320, P. P. C.
Now the matter is left as to what particular section is applicable after it is held that the case is not covered by section 307, P. P. C. The next section which can be invoked for the purpose in hand is section 326, P. P. C. Therefore, the conviction is altered from sections 307, P. P. C. To 326, P. P. C. But the question of sentence again arises for consideration for the simple reason that mere reprimanding the petitioner as to the abuses given to the insured's sister will not put the petitioner to take out his knife and stab therewith. There must have been something more than what has been stated by the injured which provoked the petitioner to act so recklessly, therefore, in the case as it is, it appears that full version as to the happening of the incident has not been brought to light, so keeping various factors in view such as the absence of any motive, dealing with one blow only, the relationship between the parties inter se, obscurity as to facts preceding the actual happening and as to the period of confinement of the injured in the hospital for better evidence. The sentence under the above said conviction is treated the same as has already been undergone i. e. About one year and three months by the petitioner. However, in the circumstances of the case he is fined Rs, 500 or in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's R. I. The fine if realised is to be paid to the injured P. W. This revision petition is partly accepted. 1981 p Cr. L J 1024 PLD 1960(W. P.) Lab. 62 1971 P Cr. L J 1222 PLJ 1975 Cr. C. 583