' The instant appeal is against the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 13th November, 1980. The appellant was sentenced to 3 years' R. I. And to pay fine of Rs, 5,000 and in default to undergo R I. For six months more. The fine if recovered then out of the fine Rs, 3,000 be paid as compensation to the injured under section 544-A, Cr. P. C.
2. The brief facts are that on 15th June, 1976 at 4-30 p. m. The mother of the injured Muhammad Akram was quarrelling with the mother of the accused. Muhammad Akram the injured who was sitting in the house, came out to admonish her mother not to quarrel. In the meantime( the accused Riyasat Ali came out from his house which is adjacent to the house of the injured to beat the mother of the injured. The injured, however, remonstrated the accused by stopping him at the door. The accused who had knife in his hand gave a knife blow on the left side of stomach of the accused. At that time witnesses Jalandar Khan, Muhammad Siddique and other persons were present and they rescued and averted the quarrel. At 5.35 p. m. a report was entered by the A. S. I.
P., S. I. T. E. Area.
3. Abdul Hafeez Khan the A. S. I. P. Investigated this matter. He saw the scene of offence and prepared the mashirnama in the presence of mashirs Jalandar Khan and Faqir Muhammad. The mashirnama is at Exh.
8. On the same day he recorded the statement of the mashirs and witnesses Liaquat, Mst. Nazirar, Ali Muhammad, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Siddique. The accused Riasat Ali was arrested from his house and the knife was secured from the pocket of his `Kurta' which was however, not blood-stained. The mashirnama Exh. 11 was prepared. The accused was subsequently challaned before the trial Court.
4. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Has denied the incident and averred that he was falsely implicated due to enmity. The trial Court examined the injured Muhammad Akram, P. W. Barkat Ali, P. W. Faqir Muhammad, P. W. Mst. Naziran, P. W. Ali Muhammad, Dr. Abdul Majid and A. S. I. P. Abdul Hafeez Khan. The accused in his defence examined his mother Mst.
Ramzan Bi and one Barkat Ali.
5. The appeal was argued on behalf of the appellant by the Advocate Mr. Muhammad Amin Tariq and Mr. Murtaza Hussain argued for the State.
6. I have heard the arguments put forward by the counsel of the appellant and have perused the judgment, impugned herein. The incident took place in front of the door of the house of injured and it was witnessed by the mother of the injured and by the mother of accused besides the witnesses Jalandar Khan, Barkat Ali P. W. 2 who is brother of the injured and others. These witnesses have supported the version of the injured and they proved the facts that the accused stabbed Akram at the abdomen. These witnesses are trustworthy and their testimony is not broken by the cross- examination. It appears that the witnesses are natural, reliable and their credibility cannot be doubted. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the witnesses are mother and brother as such are interested. Although they are near kith and kin but their evidence is natural.
They could be relied upon. The counsel for the appellant has further urged that the Medical Officer who had seen the injury and certified the same, was not available and in his place one Dr. Abdul Majid was examined. Dr. Abdul Majid has verified the signature of the Medical Officer who had examined the injured and further he had countersigned the certificate which was issued. Dr. Abdul Majid was fully conversant with the handwriting of the Doctor who had examined the injured and he has deposed that he knew the signature of Dr. Shuja who had examined Akram on 15th June, 1974. The Medical Officer had found one incised injury on the abdomen about 1r x 3/4"x abdomen deep. A piece of fat came out. The objection was raised by the counsel for the appellant that the Medical Officer who had personally examined the injured was not examined and therefore, the certificate has no evidentiary value. However, it may be "stated that the medical certificate was countersigned by Dr. Abdul Majid who was conversant with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Shuja, therefore, the point raised by the counsel fails. Besides the existence of injury on the person of the injured was noted down in the Memo. And mashirnama by the Investigating Officer. The existence of the injury on the person of Muhammad Akram cannot be doubted, and it is proved.
7. The next piece of arguments of the learned counsel is that the witnesses such as Jalandar, Faqir Muhammad and other witnesses who were independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. This objection is ruled out by the lower Court as the same were not available at the time of trial and the non-examination of the witnesses would not discredit the evidence already on record and the evidence already on record is both natural and trustworthy. The learned counsel has further argued that the defence witnesses have put forward a plea that the injured came out with a hatchet in hand and struck the hatchet on the door of the house of the accused. The hatchet was removed. The aggression was on the part of the injured. The D. Ws. Do not say as to how the injury on the person of the injured was caused. They have supported the incident on the whole but have suppressed the fact of the injury on the person of the injured Muhammad Akram. The defence witnesses on the c face of it have suppressed the most important aspect of the case and therefore, they cannot be believed.
8. The corroboration of securing the knife from the pocket of `Kurta' of the accused is not considered by the learned trial Court. The knife was not blood-stained and, therefore, this piece of corroboration was rule out of the consideration. In all probability the knife was not secured from the pocket of `kurta' of the accused. Even otherwise without the corroboration the fact of inflicting injury by the accused on the injured Muhammad Akram is proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
9. Lastly in the wake of arguments the learned counsel prayed for the reduction of the sentence on the ground that the incident was as old as it took place in 1976. The learned counsel for the State concedes to the reduction of the sentence.
10. After having considered the arguments of the learned counsel, find that the arguments of the defence have no force and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, considering the fact that the case is old, I hereby reduce the sentence to R. I. For 18 months and to pay fine of Rs, 1,000 and in default to suffer R. I. For six months. However, if the fine is paid it may be given in compensation to the injured. The appeal is dismissed with the above modification.