Nawab Din, Badar Din and Muhammad Farid petitioners were convicted, by Mr. Hamid Ahmad, Magistrate Section 30, Toba Tek Singh, by order, dated 20th November, 1983 under section 325/34, P. P. C. And sentenced to three years, R. I. And a fine of Rs, 1,000 or in default one month's R. I. Each.
Their three co-accused Alaf Din, Ghulam Din and Satar Din were, however, acquitted. The convicted accused Nawab Din etc. Filed appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, who dismisssd the same by order, dated 21st February, 1984 maintaining their conviction and sentence.
They have come up in revision against the said judgment.
2. In brief the prosecution case is that on 9th February, 1983, at about 4-00 p. m. Muhammad Ramzan P. W. 3 and his brother Abdul Maki P. W. 1 were sitting near the sugarcane crusher. Abdul Majid P. W. Went to urinate at a short distance when suddenly Nawab Din, Badar Din and Muhammad Farid petitioners alongwith acquitted accused came there armed with sotas and Munies of bullock-cart. They all caused injuries to Muhammad Ramzan P. W.
3. He was medically examined by Dr. Captain Khalid, who found 26 injuries on various parts of his body. Abdul Majid P. W. 1 after the occurrence went to lodge the report at the Police Station whereafter the present petitioners were challaned, tried and convicted as stated above.
3. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case. Ramzan P. W. 3 is injured. Abdul Majid P. W. 1 brother of Ramzan P. W. And Muhammad Hanif (not related) supported Muhammad Ramzan P. W. Dr. Abdul Hamid Radiologist P. W. 4 X-rayed the head, right shoulder, right ribs and chest only of Muhammad Ramzan but did not find any fracture or dislocation of bones. Dr. Captain Khalid P. W. 5 medically examined Muhammad Ramzan. He found 26 injuries which included one on the right forearm near the wrist joint and another on the right lower leg which were described to be grievous in nature by him. Imdad Hussain A. S. I. Investigated the case.
4. The accused when examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. Denied the charge and produced Muhammad Ilyas F. C. D. W. 1 who proved registration of a case vide F. I. R. No, 78 of 1970 at the instance of Nawab Din accused against Muhammad Hanif P. W. And his brother Muhammad Siddiq. This is to show that there was criminal litigation between Nawab Din petitioner and Muhammad Hanif P. W.
2. The second defence wit-ness Muhammad Rafiq D. W. 2 produced Roznamcha report No, 258, dated 18th February, 1981 to prove that possession of Ehata No, 19 min was taken from Allah Ditta under orders of the Commissioner, dated 11t1 February, 1981 Exh. D. B. It was conceded by the learned counsel fol the petitioners. That it is not proved on the record of this case that Allah Ditta was, in any way, connected with the complainant party.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is contended by him that there was delay of 30 hours in lodging of the, F. I. R. ; that the witnesses were closely related and that the medical evidence provided by two Medical Officers is mutually contradictory. It was, therefore, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the petitioners.
6. I have gone through the entire evidence on record and also the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh. I find that the lower appellate Court considered all the points now raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The said judgment is well-reasoned and no exception can be taken to the conclusions drawn by learned Sessions Judge. It may be pointed out that Muhammad Hanif P. W. 2 was not related to the complainant party. It is correct that there was litigation between Nawab Din accused and Muhammad Hanif P. W. In the year 1970 i. e. About thirteen years earlier. Thereafter, there was no disput or enmity between the parties. Thirteen years old criminal litigation between the parties would not make Muhammad Hanif, an interested witness. The other witnesses are related to Muhammad Ramzan injured. The enmity is a double- edged weapon. It was a day time occurrence. The assailants were identified and named in the F. I.
R. There was no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any misreading of evidence by any of the two Courts below who by a concurrent finding came to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioners was fully proved by the prosecution. No illegality or infirmity in the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh could be pointed out by the learned counsel.
7. This revision petition under section 439, Cr. P. C. Is directed against the concurrent findings of two Courts below holding the petitioner guilty under section 325/34, P. P. C. The revisional jurisdiction of thiS Court is discretionary in nature and as held in Karam Khan v. Noor Muhammad etc. the concurrent findings of the Courts below are no interfered with unless the same are found to be perverse or resulted in an: miscarriage of justice. In exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to substitute findings of the Courts below by re-appraisal of evidence on record. All that has to be seen is whether justice has been done in particular case or not. The revisional jurisdiction is to be exercise sparingly and only in cases of manifest illegality or gross miscarriage c justice.
8. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingiy dismissed in limine. 1980 P Cr. L J 578 revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.