' The revision petition is directed against the order dated 8-41-1983 of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 12-8-1981 of Magistrate 1st Class, Bhakkar whereof learned Magistrate convicted Allah Bakhsh petitioner under section 325 P.P.C. And sentenced him to 2 years R.I. The other petitioners, namely Ghazi and Karim Bakhsh were convicted under section 324/34 P.P.C. And sentenced to one year's R.I. Each.
' Learned Appellate Court while rejecting the appeal also passed the sentence of fine of Rs, 500 in the case of Allah Bakhsh petitioner and Rs,200 each in the case of the other petitioners,
2. The occurrence had taken place on 6-5-1980 near the Dera of Ghulam Qadir in the area of village Kalul, Police Station Kallur Kot. The First Information Report was lodged on the following day.
3. The prosecution relied upon the medical evidence, the eye-witness account, and the evidence of recoveries.
' Learned trial Court after having sifted the evidence came to the conclusion that all the accused had participated in the occurrence. The plea taken by the petitioners that P.W. Azeem had suffered injuries when he had been struck by a he-buffalo in jungle, and the statement of the only defence witness was not considered enough, even, to create doubt in the prosecution case.
' Learned Appellate Court also reached the same conclusion after sifting the evidence. The complainant had filed a revision petition and learned appellate Court while rejecting the appeal, also passed the sentences of fine of Rs,500 in the case of Allah Bakhsh petitioner and Rs,200 each in the case of other two petitioners,
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no sharp edged weapon injury on the person of any of the prosecution witnesses, and as such conviction under section 324, P.P.C.
Was not maintainable, that there is a delay of 22 hours, that although Civil Hospital Kallur Kot was nearer, yet the P.Ws. Went all the way long to Bhakkar for their medical examination, that Ghulam Ahmad P.W. Who had lodged the first information report, had suffered only bruises and so he could have gone to the Police Station soon after the occurrence, that the plea of the petitioners and the defence evidence have not been considered properly, and that all the P.Ws. Are related and interested.
5. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the judgments of both the lower Courts. No mala fides have been brought on record for the P.Ws.
Having gone to Bhakkar for their medical examination. They had rather explained that doctor was not available at Kallur Kot and for this reason they had gone to Bhakkar. Bhakkar was at a long distance, and it was for this reason that the F.I.R. Was lodged with some delay. Thus the delay also stood explained.
' The occurrence had taken place at a place which was not thickly populated, the witnesses only could have been the persons who had accompanied the injured P.Ws. Out of three eye-witnesses, two were injured, and about the 3rd it is stated that he was also accompanying them. There is no question to disbelieve the injured P.Ws. There does not seem to be any reason that they had falsely implicated the petitioners, The evidence of the 3rd witness also cannot be ruled out for the only reason, that he was related to the other P.Ws, as his presence at the spot was not un-natural by any means. Although there is some merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that there being no sharp edged weapon injury, petitioners Karim Bakhsh and Ghazi could not be convicted under section 324 P.P.C. However, it has not been argued that the offence did not fall under section 323, P.P.C. The defence plea, ostensibly does not seem to be true. As observed by learned appellate Court, had the injuries been suffered by buffalo's striking, the dimensions and shape of the injuries would not have been the same, as found on the person of the P.W. The injuries were on different parts of the bodies. There were no signs of trampling by animal. The doctor, in this regard had given a clear opinion that the injuries could not have been suffered by trampling or striking by an animal. No case for interference has been made out. There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.
The conviction of Karim Bakhsh and Ghazi petitioners is, however, altered from section 324/34 P.P.C.
To section 323/34 P.P.C, but the sentence will remain the same. The petitioners shall be given the benefit of provisions of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.