1. ' Appellants above-named, being aggrieved by judgment, dated 7-5-1979 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, in Sessions Case No, 175 of 1977 by which appellants have been convicted under sections 324, 323/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For 12 months each and to pay compensation of Rs,100 each to the injured and in default of payment of said fine to suffer further R.I. For 6 months, have preferred the above appeal, on the following facts and grounds:- ' Prosecution case in brief is, that appellant Ahmed was married to Mst. Pathani about 8/9 years before the incident. After about one year of the marriage, he divorced her whereafter she started living with her brother Mohammad Yousuf. Later on Mst. Pathani was married to P.W. Azizullah for a consideration of Rs,7,000. It is alleged that appellant Ahmed and his party were annoyed over this marriage and they had proclaimed to have a revenge from Azizullah. Besides appellants had objected to the taking of lands from Shamsuddin Memon on lease by Azizullah, but he did not listen to their objection. On the fateful day i,e, 2-7-1977 Azizullah left for Dadu, via Sehwani Road and at about 10.30 a.m. When he reached Agriculture Research Station, the present appellants persons assaulted him. It is the case of tne prosecution, that appellant Shaman was armed with a hatchet, while Ahmed and Buxial, had Lathis with them. After issuing Hakals of murder to Azizullah, appellant Shaman dealt hatchet blows to him on his perietal region and right arm, while Ahmed and Buxial dealt Lathi blows to him on his head and other parts of his body. On the cries and commotion: P.Ws.
2. Kouro and Allandino, both Khosa by caste were attracted to the place of incident and beseached the appellants persons not to kill Azizullah, whereafter they went away while giving abuses. P.Ws.
3. Kouro and Allandino carried injured Azizullah to Dadu Police Station, where Azizullah lodged the report of the incident at 11-30 a.m. The same day.
4. ' After recording the F.I.R. S.H.O. Abdul Razaq noted injuries on the person of Azizullah and referred him to Civil Hospital, Dadu. He secured blood-stained clothes from the person of injured Azizullah and after recording the statements of P.Ws. Kouru and Allandino handed over the case papers to A.S.-I.P. Ghulam Dastagir, for further investigation. On receipt of the F.I.R., A.S.I.-P. Ghulam Dastgir inspected the place of incident at the pointation of P.W. Kouro. He secured blood-stained earth, two broken pieces of handle of hatchet and a Danda duly blood-stained from this place. He searched the house of appellants Ahmed and Shaman, but nothing incriminating was secured. On 7-7-1977 appellants Ahmed and Shaman appeared at police station, when they were taken into custody. On interrogation appellant Shaman offered to produce the crime weapon before the A.S.-I.P. On the next day morning, he led the A.S.-I.P. And Mashirs Ghulam Shah and Mohomed Ismail to his house and produced a bloodstained hatchet with broken handle, which was secured. On 9-7-1977 appellant Buxial alias Bakhoo appeared at Dadu Police Station, when he was arrested by A.S.-J.P.
5. Ghulam Dastagir. On completion of investigation all the appellants were challaned in the Court of learned Civil Judge and F.C.M., Dadu, who sent this case to the court of Sessions for trial in terms of section 190(3), Cr.P.C. The case was received in trial Court by way of transfer.
6. ' At the trial appellants Shaman and others pleaded not guilty to the charge, while the prosecution examined Azizullah P.W.1, Kouro P.W.2, Allandino P.W.3, Mashir Ghulam Shah P.W.4, Dr. Ghulam Rasul Lashari P.W.5, A.S.-I.P. Ghulam Dastagir P.W. 6 and S.H2O. Abdul Razaq P.W.
7. 7.
8. ' In their respective statements all the appellants have denied the allegations against them and alleged enmity against the witnesses. Appellant Ahmed had denied that he was annoyed over the marriage of Mst. Pathani with Azizullah after being divorced. D.W. Saindito was examined in defence.
9. ' The learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it convicted and sentenced the appellant above-named as hereinbefore mentioned and consequently appellants have filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the memo. Of appeal.
10. ' The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted as under:-
(a) That P.W. Allandino turned hostile and the hatchet allegedly recovered from the appellant was not sent to the Chemical Examiner and as such it would be unsafe to rely on the statement of P.W. 1 Azizullah complainant and P.W. Karo in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the land dispute between the complainant and the appellant side.
(b) That in the alternative the appellants remained as under-trial prisoners from 7-7-1977 to 19th July, 1977 and after conviction 7-5-1977 to 19-5-1977 and as such interest of justice will be fully met, if the sentences awarded to the appellants are reduced to the one already undergone by them.
11. ' The learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submitted, that the statement of P.W. 1 Azizullah has been fully corroborated by the statement of P.W. Karo, who is independent witness and as such he fully supports the impugned judgment for the reasons given in the said judgment.
12. ' I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R & P of the learned trial Court as well as the impugned judgment.
13. Statement of P.W. 1 Azizullah remained unchallenged as none of the appellants cross-examined him. Statement of P.W. 1 is fully corroborated by statement of P.W. 2 Kouro, who too was not cross- examined by appellants. I find statements of these 2 P.Ws. Straightforward and convincing and further appellants did not challenge their A statements at all by cross-examination. However, according to P.W. 5 Dr. Ghulam Rasool, all injuries received by P.W. 1 were simple injuries. In view of this, I find prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the appellants, on the basis of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, even if recoveries are discarded.
14. However incident is of July, 1977 and appellants are on bail since 19-5-1979. Furthermore, appellants remained in custody as under-trial prisoners from 7-5-1979 upto 19-5-1979 and after conviction from 7-7-1977 till 19-7-1977. Since all injuries received by P.W. 1 were simple, in my opinion, ends of justice will be fully met, if the sentences awarded to appellants are reduced from 12 months to one already undergone by them, as it would be unfair to remand back appellants to custody, after the laspe of nearly 4 years.
15. ' Therefore, while dismissing above appeal on merits, I reduce the sentences of imprisonment awarded to appellants from 12 months to 21 days and maintain the compensation of Rs,100 payable by each to P.W.
1. I further grant benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr. P.C. To appellants in respect of their period of detention, as undertrial prisoners from 7-5-1979 to 19-5-1979 and consequently it is not necessary to remand back the appellants to judicial custody, in respect of substantive sentences awarded to them by this judgment. However, I grant one month time to appellants to pay Rs,100 each by way of compensation to P.W. 1 Azizullah and on such payment, bail bonds executed by appellants shall stand discharged. In case appellants fail to deposit said compensation payable to P.W. 1, within the time allowed by this judgment, in the learned trial Court, then learned trial Court is directed to issue non-bailable warrants for arrest of appellants and on their arrests to remand them back to judicial custody to serve out sentences in lieu of non-payment of compensation in question, as awarded by impugned judgment.
16. ' The above appeal stands dismissed in terms of above judgment.