On the basis of a complaint lodged by Sakhawat Hussain complainant, the petitioners were tried by a learned Magistrate at Bhalwal on charges under section 308 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The learned trial Magistrate found the petitioners guilty, and vide his judgment dated 27-10-1985 convicted the petitioners under the aforesaid charges and sentenced each of the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten months, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 each, or in default of the payment of fine to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction, the petitioners preferred an appeal, which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sargodha, who vide his order dated 14-12-1985 dismissed the said appeal.
3. The present revision petition is directed against both the aforesaid orders.
4. I have gone through the record of this case, and I have also heard the learned counsel at length.
The prosecution case, made out in the complaint, teas, that on 23-7-1984 at about 10-00 a.m., while the complainant was proceedings to village Salam on a mare, the petitioners caught hold of the complainant near the dera of one Jallu Bajwa in village Abdal. Allegedly all the petitioners were armed with Sotas, and Rukan Din petitioner caught hold of the reins of the mare, and, thereafter, merciless beating was given to the complainant. Hue and cry raised by the complainant attracted Khalil, Rehmat and Jalal P.Ws., and all the petitioners having seen these witnesses escaped from the scene of occurrence.
5. The complainant was taken to Civil Hospital, Phullerwan in a tonga, but since the doctor was not available in the said Hospital, the complainant was then taken to Civil Hospital, Bhalwal, were he was medically examined, stated by the complainant, that he deputed his uncle Rehmat P.W., to lodge an F.I.R., and the Bhalwal police recorded report. No. 23 on 28th of July, 1,984, but the police did not take any action, because all these injuries were simple, and, therefore, constrained by the conduct of the police the complainant had instituted a complaint. At the trial the complainant besides himself produced Khalil P.W.2 and Rehmat P.W. 3, while Jallu was given up having been won over. Dr. Rafi Ullah was examined at P.W.4.
6. In their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied the charge and stated, that since, the parties were litigating with each other over a dispute of civil nature, therefore, on account of enmity the petitioners have been falsely implicated.
7. I have examined the judgments and have also perused the statements of the witnesses. The testimony of Rehamt P.W.3, was rightly discarded by the Courts below on account of the enmity of Rehamt, who had also previously lodged two unsuccessful complaints against the accused side.
As far as Khalil P.W.2 and the complainant himself are concerned, their statements inspire confidence. Khalil P.W.2 explained his presence in a satisfactory manner. He was not a chance witness, as asserted by the learned counsel, because at the relevant time he was proceeding to his Village, when he saw the occurrence, I, therefore, do not find any reason to reject his testimony. The medical evidence shows 23 bruises on the person of the complainant, which amply corroborates the prosecution version with regard to the causing of injuries with blunt weapon.
8. One of the petitioners Rukan Din had entered in the witness-box and denied the charge and stated, that or account of the litigation of civil nature, he had been implicated. Such enmity is double edged weapon and could be equally a cause for the accused side to have attacked the complainant.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners was not able to point out any other illegality, so as to warrant interference. The learned counsel then contended, that the doctor had not been cross- examined. The record shows, that the petitioners had declined to cross-examine the doctor. Hence no capital can be made out of the absence of the cross-examination of the doctor. Most probably, the petitioners declined to cross-examine the doctor, because the injuries were not self-suffered.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted, that the, sentence was severe. This aspect, of course, requires consideration. In the circumstances of the case, I would reduce the sentence of the petitioners to one already undergone, but the sentence of fine shall remain intact.
The fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 344-A, Cr.P.C. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.