The facts giving rise to this Criminal revision are that Sheer Muhammad petitioner was tried by Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur East under section 325, P.P.C. On the allegations that he caused grievous injury to Peer Bakhsh complainant with Dang.
2. To prove its case prosecution examined six witnesses. Peer BakhE5ih complainant stated that at the eventful time Sher Muhammad petitioner duly armed with Dang had opened attack on him and injured him. Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Sharif P.Ws. Supported the statement of the complainant on all material particulars. Dr. Javed Hassan Ajmi in examination-in-chief stated that injury No.4 found on the person of the complainant was grievous. In cross-examination he stated that he himself had taken the X-ray of the complainant. The rest of evidence is of formal nature.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner denied all incriminating circumstances and raised pies of alibi. In defence the produced one witness to prove alibi. The learned Magistrate, vide his order, dated 16-12-1984 convicted the petitioner under section 325, P.P.C. And sentenced him to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.500 in default thereof two months' R.I. With the direction that fine when recovered be paid to the complainant. The appeal filed by the petitioner failed on 9-2- 1985.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since tine Radiologist was not examined, therefore, conviction under section 325, P.P.C. Cannot be sustained. In the alternative, he requested fear reduction in sentence. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgments of the Courts below.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that from the statement of the Doctor made by him during the cross-examination, it is very much clear that the X-ray was taken by the Doctor himself and as such the A non-production of Radiologist is of no consequence. As for the request of leniency in sentence, I feel that in the circumstances of the case that the petitioner is not a previous convict, that the grievous injury caused by him was on the arm and not on the vital part of the body that the petitioner has suffered agony of trial, the sentence of two years' R.I. Is excessive. The sentence is, therefore, reduced from 2 years' R.I. To one year's R.1. The fine and sentence of imprisonment in default thereof awarded by the Trial Court is, however, maintained. The fine when recovered be paid to the complainant. With this reduction in the sentence the Revision is dismissed.