' This judgment will dispose of Crl. Revision No, 516/83 and suo motu Criminal Revision No, 587/83.
2. Mukhtar Ahmad, Irshad, Munawwar and Muhammad Aslam accused were convicted by a Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, by judgment dated 16-4-1983, under section 325/34 P.P.C. Mukhtar Ahmad and Irshad" Ahmad were sentenced to suffer one year R.I. And a fine of Rs,500 or in default three months, R.I. Each while Munawwar and Muhammad Aslam were sentenced to two years' R.I.
And a fine of Rs, 500 or in default three months' R.I. Each. All the four convicts filed appeal against their convictions and sentences. The appeal was disposed of by Mr. Muhammad All Shah, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide judgment dated 22-9-1983. He convicted all the four appellants before him under section 323/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to six months' R.I. And a fine of Rs, 500 or in default three months' R.I. Each. They all filed Criminal Revision No, 516/83 against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. The revision of Mukhtar Ahmad and Irshad Ahmad accused was dismissed in limine on 1-11-1983. Munawar and Muhammad Aslam accused-petitioners were issued notice to show cause as to why their sentence should not be enhanced. This was registered as Criminal Revision No, 587/83.
3. The facts of the case are that Abdul Hameed P.W. Complainant purchased a plot measuring 5 Marlas 82 feet from Muhammad Amin and others in Wasanpura, Lahore, and paid Rs,500 as advance. Subsequently, the Government reserved the entire land in Wasanpura for allotment to the residents of flood-affected area. Mst. Latifan Bibi was allotted the plot of Abdul Hameed in that capacity. Abdul Hameed and other residents of the locality made representations to the higher authorities. The Deputy Commissioner, Lahore assured them that they will also be accommodated.
According to the F.I.R., the Deputy Commissioner also told the residents including the complainant that they should remain in possession of their respective plots. On this account, Abdul Hameed asked Mst. Latifan Bibi not to raise any construction on the said plot. As a further precaution, the complainant filed a civil suit and obtained an order of status quo. The said suit was pending when the present occurrence took place on 21-1-1979, at about 5.30 p.m. It is alleged that Abdul Hameed complainant along with Mukhtar Ahmad P.W. Son of Fateh Jang on 21-1-1979, at about 5.30 p.m., came to the area where his plot was located. They saw that Muhammad Aslam accused was digging earth for raising foundation of the house on the plot of Mukhtar Ahmad P.W. A brother of Rehmat (Munawwar accused) was also with him. The complainant objected to the digging of earth whereafter both Muhammad Aslam and the brother of Rehmat (Munawwar accused) started giving blows with sticks to Abdul Hameed complainant, Ghulam Sabir and Mukhtar Ahmad P.Ws. In the meanwhile, Mukhtar Ahmad accused and Irshad Ahmad accused also reached there. They gave fist blows to the three injured witnesses. After the occurrence, Abdul Hameed P.W. Went to P.S. Misri Shah and reported the matter to the police who recorded his statement Exh.P.A. In the daily diary and referred the three injured to the Medical Officer for examination. After the medical examination, formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A/1 was recorded under section 325/34, P.P.C. On 29-1-1979. The police undertook investigation. On 3-2-1979, Munawwar accused produced Danda P.1 which was taken in possession vide memo Exh.P.B. And Muhammad Aslam accused produced Danda P.2 which was taken in possession vide memo Exh.P.C. Both these memos were prepared by Rehmat Ali S.I. P.W.9 and attested by Laeeq Ahmad P.W.4 and Muhammad Salim P.W.5. The three injured were medically examined by Dr. Tahir Anees P.W.6 who found six blunt weapon injuries on various parts of the body of Abdul Hameed P.W. Out of these, injury No, 6 on the left back of chest was found grievous. Mukhtar Ahmad P.W. Was found to have four blunt weapon simple injuries, and Ghulam Sabir P.W. Was found to have two blunt weapon simple injuries on their persons. Dr. Muhammad Akram P.W.10 had undertaken X-ray of the injuries of Abdul Hameed P.W. He sent a report Exh. P.J. Declaring injury No,6 as grievous. The accused were challaned after investigation.
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Abdul Hameed P.W.1, Mukthar Ahmad P.W.2 and Ghulam Sabir P.W.3, all injured, appeared as eye-witnesses. The medical evidence was provided by Dr. Tahir Anees P.W.6 and Dr. Muhammad Akram P.W.10. The investigation was done by Rehmat Ali S.I. P.W.9 and Abdul Shakoor S.I. P.W.8. The evidence of rest of the witnesses was of formal nature.
' In their statements, the accused denied the charge and pleaded innocence. They produced seven witnesses in defence. Fida Hussain D.W .1, Ittefaq Hussain D .W.2 and Noor Muhammad D.W.7 made statements regarding alibi of Irshad Ahmad and Mukhtar Ahmad accused. I need not discuss their evidence because their revision has already been dismissed. Azmat Ullah D.W.3, Muhammad Munir D.W.5 and Muhammad Siddiq D.W.6 only stated that no occurrence took place as alleged by the prosecution. Their evidence is meaningless. Muhammad Jamil D.W.4 stated that he never owned any plot nor did he sell any plot to Abdul Hameed in Wasanpura. His evidence is also of no help to the accused because the complainant in the F.I.R. Stated that he had purchased land from Muhammad Amin and others,
5. I have gone through the record of this case with the assistance of learned counsel for Munawwar and Muhammad Aslam petitioners, It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ownership or possession of plot of Abdul Hameed has not been established by the prosecution; that the recoveries of Dandas from the accused were false; that the eye-witnesses were interested and should not be relied upon; that the story put forth by the prosecution was improbable; and finally that the grievous injury is not specifically attributed to any accused. In view of this, it was argued by the learned counsel that the accused should be acquitted. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that as the grievous injury is not attributable to any individual accused, the sentence should not be enhanced.
6. The learned counsel for the State has controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and has prayed for enhancement of sentence of the two petitioners.
7. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. This is a revision petition and the witnesses have been believed by both the Courts below. It is correct that the parties were litigating in Civil Court and had dispute over the possession of a plot but this fact A could not be considered to be an evidence of enmity on account of which the accused could be falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. It was also the case of the complainant that the accused caused them injuries on account of the dispute over a plot. The motive is a double-edged weapon and as such, the accused could have a motive to cause injuries to the three witnesses for that reason. The ownership and possession of the plot in question Was asserted by the eye-witnesses during the trial. A civil suit was also pending between the parties. This clearly proves that the accused had motive to assault the three eye-witnesses. The recoveries of Dandas have been duly proved by the evidence of Rehmat Ali S.I. The three P.Ws were injured. They are no doubt, related inter se but had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioners in the instant case. I find no improbability in the prosecution story which was believed by both the Courts below.
8. In view of the above, I find no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
9. A perusal of the medical evidence would indicate that injury No,6 on the person of Abdul Hameed P.W.1 was grievous. All the accused had been charged under section 34, P.P.C. And as such, even if the grievous injury was not attributable to any individual accused, then also the accused were liable for the grievous injury under section D 325/34, P.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused from the charge under section 325/34, P.P.C. And instead convicted them under section 323/34 P.P.C. I, in exercise of revision jurisdiction, cannot convert the acquittal from the charge under section 325/34, P.P.C. Into conviction under that offence. I, however, enhance E the sentence of imprisonment of Munawwar and Muhammad Aslam petitioners to one year R.I. Each.
10. In view of the above, Munawwar and Muhammad Aslam accused are sentenced under section 323/34, P.P.C. To suffer one year R.I. And a fine of Rs,500 or in default three months' R.I. Each. They shall surrender to undergo their unexpired sentence.