' The facts giving rise to this revision are that Muhammad Ibrahim petitioner and 6 others were tried by Magistrate Section 30, Sialkot under section 325/148/149, P.P.C. The prosecution examined five witnesses out of whom Bashir P.W. 2, Ghulam Nabi P.W. 3 and Nasir Ahmad P.W. 4 gave the ocular account of the occurrence. P.W. 1 Dr. Nazir Ahmad appeared to prove the medico-legal report relatable to the injuries found on the person of the injured witnesses. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence, no evidence was produced. The trial Court at the conclusion of the trial while acquitting the co-accused convicted Muhammad Ibrabhim petitioner under section 325, P.P.C. And sentenced him to 3 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,500 in default thereof to further R.I. For 9 months. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 24-9-1984, hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court having disbelieved the eye-witnesses to the extent of co-accused should not have convicted the petitioner on the same evidence and that the Radiologist was not produced to prove the X-Ray report of the injured witnesses. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the trial Court after having applied its conscious mind to the evidence on record has given sound and cogent reasons for giving benefit of doubt to the co-accused and since grievous injury was specifically attributed to the petitioner, therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the trial Court has rightly held him responsible for causing that injury to Bashir Ahmad P.W.
2. Despite this finding, I am of the view that since the Radiologist has not been examined it would be in accordance with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases that the benefit of doubt is given to the --accused petitioner on the nature of offence. This brings me to the question as to whether the petitioner who had caused hurt with Dang be convicted under section 323 or 324, P.P.C.
I am of the view that when simple injury is caused with a Dang, the act of the accused would be punishable under section 324, P.P.C. And not under section 323, P.P.C. The relevant provision of law may be reproduced advantageously:-- ' Section 324, P.P.C.-- VOLUNTARILY CAUSING HURT BY DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR MEANS.-- "Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334 voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing, or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any person or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the bldod or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
From the bare reading of the provision of law reproduced above, it is very much obvious that when hurt or simple injury is caused by any instrument which used as weapon of offence is likely to cause the death, the offence would be punishable under section 324, P.P.C. Since Dang when used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death, therefore, I feel inclined to convict the petitioner under section 324, P.P.C. Instead of 325, P.P.C. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the sentence of 9 months' R.I. And a fine of Rs,500 in default thereof one year's R.I. Would meet the case. .