' Nazir Ahmad and his two sons Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Ashraf were convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. By a Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad vide judgment dated 19-12-1982. Nazir Ahmad was sentenced to suffer two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default three months' R.I.
Muhammad Anwar was sentenced to suffer three years' R.I. And a fine of Rs, 1,000 or in default three months' R.I. Whereas Muhammad Ashraf was sentenced to suffer four years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default six months' R.I. They filed appeal against their conviction and sentences which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on 12-7-1984. Hence this revision.
2. The prosectuion case in brief is that on 24-4-1981 at about 4.30 p.m. Liaquat All P.W. Was returning home on a cycle, when he reached near the house of Siddique Jat in the Mohallah, suddenly Muhammad Ashraf accused also came there on a cycle and blocked his way. They both exchanged abuses. The Mohallandars intervened and separated them. Again at 10-30 p.m. i.e, after about six hours, the three petitioners went to the house of Liaquat Ali and shouted Liaquat Ali to come out of the house so that they may teach him a lesson. The complainant remained inside his house. Next morning i.e, on 25-4-1981 at daybreak time Liaquat Ali P.W. Was returning home after easing himself. At that time his younger brother Muhammad Nawaz was coming out of the house.
Suddenly Muhammad Ashraf armed with Chhuri, Muhammad Anwar armed with knife and their father armed with Dang came there. Muhammad Ashraf inflicted Chhuri blow on the arm of Muhammad Nawaz. He gave another blow on the abdomen of Muhammad Nawaz who fell down whereafter Muhammad Anwar accused gave knife blow on the back of Muhammad Nawaz. Nazir Ahmad accused gave Sota blows to Liaquat Ali P.W. On his elbow and shoulder blows. It is alleged that Muhammad Khalid, another brother of Liaquat complainant also reached there and was injured by Nazir Ahmad accused. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Din P.W. 6 father of the three injured witnesses and Nazir Muhammad P.W.
6. The latter was able to snatch Chhuri P.1 from Muhammad Ashraf and Dang P.3 from Nazir Ahmad accused. He produced these crime weapons before the police on 25-4-1981 vide memos. Exh. P.B.
And P.D. Respectively. Muhammad Anwar accused on 2-5-1981 led to the recovery of knife P.2 which was taken in possession vide memo. Exh. P.C. By S.I. Abdul Karim P.W. 9 in the presence of Muhammad Khalid P.W. 3 and Sharif (given up P.W.). The Medical Officer who examined the three injured witnesses and found a stab wound on the abdomen with omentum coming out on the person of Muhammad Nawaz P.W. He found another stab wound on the back of chest and an incised wound on the left forearm of Muhammad Nawaz. The injury on the abdomen was grievous and the other two were found simple in nature. On the same day i.e, on 25-4-1981 at 6-30 p.m. He examined Muhammad Khalid P.W. And found an incised wound on the toe of right foot and a contused wound on the right forearm and left shoulder respectively. Injury No, 2 was by sharp- edged weapon while other two were by blunt weapon. All were of simple nature, Liaquat P.W. Had two simple blunt weapon injuries on the back of left elbow and back of left shoulder. Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Ashraf accused were arrested on 2-5-1981. Muhammad Anwar had one blunt weapon simple injury on the left side of his head while Muhammad Ashraf had one sharp- edged weapon simple injury on the left index finger. Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Anwar in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Pleaded that the complainant party had attacked them and in that scuffle they themselves received injuries as well. Nazir Ahmad accused denied his presence at the spot. The accused examined Inayat D.W. 1 and Muhammad Hussain D.W. 2 in their defence. These two witnesses stated that the complainant attacked Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Anwar accused and that they separated the parties.
3. The accused were challaned and convicted as stated above. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the injuries to the accused were suppressed and not explained by the prosecution and as such no reliance could be placed on the eye-witnesses; that Nazir Ahmad accused was not present on the spot and that he has been implicated being the father of the other two accused; that earlier incident between Liaquat and Muhammad Ashraf accused was not reported to the police immediately and, therefore, could not be relied upon. It was finally argued by the learned counsel that the defence version was probable and reliable. It was, therefore, argued that the petitioners be acquitted.
4. I have considered the above arguments of the learned counsel. The two accused Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Ashraf were found to have one injury each on their persons. The said injures were minor in nature. The occurrence admittedly took place on 25-4-1981 but the accused did not appear before the police before 2-5-1981. If they had really received injuries at the spot and had been attacked by the complainant party, they should have gone to the police on the day of occurrence. There is no evidence or circumstance to show that these two accused received injuries at the spot during the occurrence. As such it was not necessary for the prosecution to offer any explanation for the alleged injuries on the two petitioners. It is correct that the first incident which took place on 24-4-1981 at 4-30 p.m. Was not reported to the police but that would not mean that the prosecution story was totally false or unreliable. The occurrence is admitted by Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Anwar petitioners. Their version is that the complainant party was the aggressor. I am not prepared to accept the version. The three injured are Hajam by caste whereas the accused are Arain by caste which is a dominant community in the village. I am, therefore, not prepared to believe that the complainant party was aggressor in the instant case. Muhammad Ashraf himself initiated trouble and then the three appellants attacked the complainant party considering them to be from inferior caste. Muhammad Nawaz P.W. Received three injuries on his person out of which one on the abdomen was grievous in nature. In my view the three accused were rightly convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C.
5. Nazir Ahmad petitioner is an old man of 55/60 years of age. He did not cause any injury to Muhammad Nawaz. He inflicted only simple injuries with blunt weapon to Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Khalid P.Ws. He was in judicial lock-up during the trial for one month and five days. He is in prison since 12-7-1984 after rejection of his appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
This means that he has already suffered about eight months in prison. I, therefore, reduce his sentence to one already undergone by him plus a fine of Rs, 1,000 or in default three months' R.I.
Under section 307/34, P.P.C.
6. Muhammad Anwar petitioner has been attributed a simple injury to Muhammad Nawaz. I, therefore, sentence him to suffer two years' R.I. Plus a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default three months' R.I.
Under section 307/34, P.P.C. Muhammad Ashraf petitioner inflicted two injuries out of which one was grievous in nature on the person of Muhammad Nawaz P.W. He is sentenced to three years' R.I.
Plus a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default six months' R.I. With the above modifications the revision petition is dismissed. The petitioners will be given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.