Muhammad Arif has filed this Criminal Revision against the dismissal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, of his appeal against his conviction and sentence under section 307, P. P. C. recorded by Magistrate Section 30, Lahore. The incident involved an attack by the petitioner wjth a knife on Muhammad Afzal P. W. The cricumstances leading to the incident as narrated by the prosecution witnesses are that the petitioner, whose father Ahmad Din had a shop in front of the house of Muhammad Aslam complainant, developed illicit relations with the complainant's sister Mst. Perveen aged about 13/14 years. Muhammad Aslam thereupon sent her away to live with her elder sister in Shahi Mohalla. On 2nd March 1969 when hardly a week had passed, he was told at 10 a.m. that the girl was missing from the house. He, therefore, told Ahmad Din to inquire from the petitioner about her whereabouts. Ahmad Din promised to do so and closing his shop went to his house. Muhammad Aslam complainant also closed his shop and went in search of the girl. It so happened that at about 2/2- 30 p.m. his brother Afzal and one Badar Din P. Ws. saw the gril Mst. Perveen sitting with the peti tioner in the Badshahi Mosque. On seeing them the petitioner ran away while the witnesses brought the girl to the house of her elder sister after which they met and narrated the fact to Muhammad Aslant. At 4-30 p.m. the same day, the complainant went to the house of Ahmad Din at his summoning wherein the presence of the petitioner and others Ahmad Din told him that the petitioner was not at fault, and that he should take care of his sister. Muhammad Aslam retorted that the petitioner was at fault and narrated the facts told to him by Muhammad Afzal and Badar Din P. Ws. This led to a quarrel, in the course of which, the petitioner took out a knife from the right pocket of his Pajama Snd inflicted blow on the left side of the neck of Muhammad Afzal P. W. after which he ran .away. The injured was medically examined in the course of which he was found to have sustained three injuries, two of which were mere abrasions but the third was grievous incised wound 3/4' x 1/4* starting from the root of the neck. The matter was reported to the Police the same day. The petitioner was arrested, the next day, and the knife was recovered on his personal search.
During the trial the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty to the charge, took the defence that Muhammad Afzal P. W. and others had entered his house and upon his raising alarm Muhammad Aslam complainant had attacked him with his knife, which struck Muhammad Afzal P. W. who had grappled with the petitioner.
2. Mr. Asad Ullah Siddiqi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the finding of the lower Courts on the ground that the eye-witnesses were interested, that the petitioner bad been implicated due to enmity arising from the suspicion of his having illicit intimacy with the complainant's sister and that the recovery of the knife was not to be believed because the petitioner was not expected to roam about with the knife in his pocket.
3. The prosecution had examined four eye-witnesses viz. Muhammad Aslam complainant, Muhammad Rafique, Muhammad Afzal (injured) and Badar Din. The trial Magistrate had not placed reliance on the evidence of Badar Din on the ground that he was a chance witness. There is, however, no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the other eye-witnesses particularly of Muhammad Rafique, who belonged to the locality, where the occurrence took place and who had not been shown to be related to the complainant party. The recovery of the knife too has been duly proved by the evidence of Jahangir Ali, who, from all appearances, is an independent person. Jn fact I see nothing material in the factual plane on the basis of which I may differ from the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts in regard to the guilt of the petitioner.
4. Mr. Asad Ullah Siddiqi's next contention, which he vehemently urged, that on the given facts an offence under section 307, P. P. C. had not been made out, is not however, without force. For the purpose of the section what is material, is the intention or knowledge and not the consequences of the actual act done. The intention may be inferred from the nature of the injuries and other cireumstances. The liability, in any case, must be limited to the act, which the accused in fact did and should not be extended so as to embrace the consequences of another act, which he might have done, but did not. The intention precedes the act and is to be proved independently of the act and nor merely gathered from the consequences that ensure: In Taj Muhammad v. State (I) where the accused using a big knife with 31' long blade had inflicted minor incised injuries, the conviction under section 307, P. P. C. had been altered to one under sec tion 324, P. P. C. in another case Dhani Bux v. The State (2) where the accused had fired a pistol and had caused countless lacerated wounds of small size, the conviction had similarly been altered from section 307, P. P. C. to one under section 324, P. P. C. In the present case too, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had the intention or knowledge of causing the death of the injured. He had run away after inflicting a single blow with the knife, which he had with him at the time of the occurrence. There is no element of premeditation or brutality to justify the assumption that he had intended to cause the death of the injured. In the circumstances the offence for which he could be convicted is one under section 324, P. P. C.
5. Mr. Asad Ullah Siddiqi also urged, in mitigation of the sentence, the fact that the petitioner was a young man and had been convicted for the first time. The petitioner's age as recorded in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. is 17 years.
6. Considering the above facts and the circumstances of the case I alter the conviction under section 307, P. P. C. to one under section 324, P. P. C. and reduce the sentence from R. I. for two years to R. I. For one year. With these modifications, the Revision Petition is dismissed. .
(l) PLD 1963 Kar. 118 (2) PLD 1964 Kar. 264