All the five petitioners have filed this revision petition as their appeal challenging the order of conviction, dated 14-12-1981 recorded by Syed Masood Ali Shah, Magistrate Section 30, Multan was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan on 28-2-1982. They were sentenced to four years' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs.2,000 each or in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I.
For six months each under section 307/149, P.P.C. And one year's R.I. Under section 148, P.P.C.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 29-1-1978 at about 1-00 p.m. Muhammad Ramzan petitioner passed through the crops of Qasim Ali complainant whom Barkat Ali P.W. Asked not to pass that way. Muhammad Ramzan petitioner felt insulted, got flared up and abused Barkat Ali.
After a short while Muhammad Ramzan and Sultan petitioners armed with hatchets, Khan petitioner armed with Pahora Khuda Bakhsh and Ghulam Muhammad armed with Lathis reached there and attacked Barkat Ali P.W.2, Allah Ditta P,W.3, Muhammad Siddiq P.W.5, Muhammad Ali P.W.6. Having satisfied their vanom, they left the spot with their weapons. The injured persons were removed to the hospital for medical examination and treatment. After obtaining their medico-legal certificates Qasim Ali P.W.1 reported the incident to the police the same day at Police Post Qadirpur Rawan. The report Exh.P.A. Of Qasim Ali was recorded by Sardar Muhammad S.I. P.W.9 on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 was drawn up. The case was investigated by Sub-Inspector Sardar Muhammad. He prepared the site-plan Exh.P.O. Danda P.1 recovered from Khuda Bakhsh and Dano P.2 from Ghulam Muhammad petitioner were seized through memo. Exh.P.F. And P.D., respectively.
Muhammad Ramzan petitioner produced hatchet P. 3, Khan Muhammad petitioner produced Pahora P. 4 and Sultan produced hatchet P. 5, which were seized through memo. Exh. P.D. Exh. P.E.
And Exh. P.C. Respectively. After usual investigation he challaned all the petitioners to Court.
4. At the trial nine witnesses were examined in all including eye--witnesses namely, Qasim Ali P.W.1, Allah Ditta P.W.3, Barkat Ali P.W.2, Muhammad Siddique P.W.5 and Muhammad Ali P.W.6. All the witnesses supported the prosecution case. P.W.7 Dr. Allah Nawaz proved the injuries suffered by the P.Ws. The petitioners when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Had denied the prosecution allegation and maintained that they were falsely implicated due to enmity. They, however, did not lead any defence evidence.
5. Both the Courts below believed the various pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution viz. Ocular evidence, incriminating recoveries and medical evidence and recorded conviction as narrated in the earlier part of the judgment.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not denied the occurrence or the participation of the petitioners therein. He also did not deny the fact of causing of injuries to the P.Ws. Namely, Barkat Ali P.W.2, Muhammad Siddique P.W.5 and Muhammad Au P.W.6. His main attack is that keeping in view the number, nature and seat of injuries suffered by the aforesaid witnesses, no offence under section 307, P.P.C. Was made out. To appreciate this contention of the learned counsel, a surveying analysis of the injuries suffered by the P.Ws. Is-essential. Muhammad Ali P.W. Suffered eight injuries in all out of which 5 are abrasions, two are contusion marks which are on the right chest and lower lip. All the injuries were simple in nature except injury No.7 which was declared grievous by the 'doctor who described it as "right lower inciser tooth out of socket with gum injury teeth unhygienic and poyric." Muhammad Siddique suffered three injuries in all one of them being abrasion, and the rest two are contusion marks with a dimension of about 4"x1" seated on both the shoulders. Out of five injuries suffered by Barkat Ali P.W. Two are the abrasion marks on the left hand, a contusion on the shoulder another contusion on head and one incised wound measuring 1 --" x --" on the top of the head. All of them were declared as simple. During cross- examination, the doctor conceded that none of the injuries found on the persons of the injured witnesses was "dangerous to life." He further stated that injuries Nos. 2 and 3 of Muhammad Siddiq and 3 and 5 o:- Barkat Ali could be the result of a fall on the ground. Similarly injuries Nos. 3 and 4 of Muhammad Ali P.W. Was a result of Lathi blow, It is to be noted that in all two injuries were found to be "grievous." One of them is on the person of Muhammad Ali, which involved "dislocation of right lower inciser tooth" and the other, "sublexcation of right shoulder" on the person of Muhammad Siddiq P.W. As for the dislocation of lower inciser tooth of Muhammad Ali P.W. Is concerned, it may be seer that he is 44 years old but has only 15 teeth in his jaws which too are diseased and according to doctor were "unhygienic" and suffered from "Pyoria". The health state of his teeth suggests that his teeth were decaying and at the age of only 44 years he had lost more than half of his teeth and the rest are in the process of shedding down. As far as the "sublexcation of right shoulder" of Muhammad Siddique P.W. Is concerned the doctor appears to have declared this injury to be grievous for technical reasons.
7. Having considered the medical evidence on record I find that none of the injuries suffered by the P.W. Is "dangerous to life". To the contrary, most of the injuries are abrasions or contusions without any serious damage. In any case, the medical evidence apes not disclose an offence under section 307, P.P.C. In view of two grievous injuries caused by blunt weapon an offence under section 325, P.P.C. Appear to have been committed, therefore, I am constrained to hold that the petitioners have been wrongly convicted under section 307 read with section 149, P.P.C. However, their conviction under section 148, P.P.C. Has not been challenged by the learned counsel. The result is that the conviction of all the petitioners under section 3071149 ,P.P.C. Is altered to one under section 325 read with section 149, P.P.C. And their sentence reduced to one year's R.I. Each. Conviction under section 148, P.P.C. Is, however, maintained but the sentence is reduced to three months' R.I. Each.
8. In the terms indicated above the revision petition is partly accepted. It is further ordered that the benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. Be extended to all of them and period for which they remained in