' The facts giving rise to this revision are that Muhammad Sardar, Muhammad Baqir, Muhammad Akbar petitioners and Bahawal co-accused were tried under section 325/34, P.P.C. By M.I.C. Hafiz Abad. The allegations were that they in furtherance of their common intention caused grievous injuries to Noor Muhammad P.W.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. Noor Muhammad P.W.1 stated that the petitioners alongwith acquitted co-accused had caused three injuries to him. Khushi Muhammad P.W.2, Muhammad Akram P.W.3 Abu-ul Hassan P.W.6 were the alleged eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Abu-ul Hassan did not support the prosecution case, so he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecutor. Khushi Muhammad and Muhammad Akram P.Ws. However supported Noor Muhammad complainant in all material particulars. Dr. Muhammad Sadiq medically examined the injured witnesses. He found three injuries caused with blunt weapon. Injury No,1 on the left arm has been declared grievous. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence, they produced three witnesses. Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Sardar stated that they were present at the time of demarcation and that no occurrence took place at that time and that Noor Muhammad received injuries when he fell down from the horse.
Shabbir Hussain made similar statement. He further stated that the disputed trees were the property of Bahawal acquitted accused.
4. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the ocular evidence is not in conformity with the medical evidence that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are closely related with the complainant that Abu-ul Hassan P.W.6 who was an independent witness has not supported the prosecution case and that the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions/ discrepancies. Conversely the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
5. I have considered their arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that injured Noor Muhammad has fully implicated the petitioners. He stated that the petitioners had given injuries on his person with their Dangs. He has successfully stood the test of cross- examination. I do not find any inherent infirmity in his statement. The statements of the eye- witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of their relationship with the complainant. The number of the accused and the injuries found on the person of the complainant do commensurate. The learned Courts below have rightly believed the ocular testimony after having applied their conscious mind to their evidence. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. The plea that the injured had received injuries when he fell down from the horse, in view of the location and nature of injuries appears to be ridiculous. For all these reasons, I am convinced that Noor Muhammad received injuries at the hands of the petitioners.
6. This brings me to the nature of offence. I find that the radiologist having not been examined, it would be in accordance with the safe administration of justice that the benefit of doubt is given to the petitioners on the question of nature of offence. Since they had caused injuries with Dangs which when used as weapon of offence are likely to cause death, therefore, the act of the petitioners would fall within the purview of section 324, P.P.C. And not section 323, P.P.C. Resultantly the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under section 325/34, P.P.C. Is set aside, instead they are convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to six months' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs,200 each in default thereof to further R.I. For one month. With this modification, the revision petition is dismissed.