1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, South Karachi, dated 31st September, 1985 whereby the accused was convicted under section 307, P.P.C.
2. And sentenced to R.I. For three years.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17-6-1986 at about 1.30 p.m. Complainant Muhammad Khan was going to the house-of his in-laws when accused Gul Alam told him that he should tell his father-in-law and Sher Muhammad to prohibit their womenfolk and children from quarrelling with his children. Meanwhile complainant's brother-in-law Shamsher Khan arrived there. He told the accused to prevent his children from stealing their chicken. This annoyed the accused who took out knife and caused three injuries to Sher Muhammad. As the complainant intervened, he too was caused injury on buttock. On commotion Shamsher Khan father-in-law of the complainant arrived at the place of occurrence and according to the prosecution case the accused caused two injuries to him also. The complainant lodged F.I.R. At the police station and after usual investigation the accused was sent up in Court.
4. The medical evidence given by Iqbal Ahmed M.L.O. Civil Hospital Karachi, (P.W.8) discloses three incised injuries on the person of Sher Muhammad. Two of the injuries received by him were certified to be simple but as regards the third injury the doctor's opinion was reserved. No further certificate oh opinion is available on record relating to that injury. It is also clear from the medical evidence that Shamsher Khan had two incised injuries which were both declared as simple. Similarly complainant Muhammad Khan was found to have scratch wound which according to the medical opinion was simple.
5. Apart from the medical evidence, the prosecution produced in evidence thre6 injured persons namely, complainant Muhammad Khan P.W.1, Shamsher Khan P.W.2.And Sher Muhammad P.W.3.
6. Although the complainant and Sher Muhammad have implicated the accused by stating that he had caused injuries to them yet Shamsher Khan has denied that he had witnessed the incident. He had stated that his son Slier Muhammad told him that accused Gul Alam had caused injuries to him. He has admitted that he too had received injuries and remained in hospital. He does not say that the accused had caused the injuries. It seems that Shamsher Khan has given obliging statement in favour of the accused showing thereby that some patch up had taken place between them. Despite his deviation from his earlier statement, the evidence of complainant Muhammad Khan and Sher Khan has made out a case against the accused that he was the author of the injuries found on their person.
7. However, the learned counsel for the applicant does not press the appeal on merits. He only requests for reduction in sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned State counsel have no objection if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused is reduced to the one he has already undergone after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was disposed by short order, dated 22-4- 1986 for reasons to follow. While maintaining the conviction of the accused the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him was reduced to the one he has already undergone. Subject to this modification in the sentence the appeal was dismissed.
8. It would appear that the, case against the accused was started on 17-6-1976 with lodging of the F.I.R. By the complainant. Thus, he has been dragged in the litigation for nearby a decade. It can be very well imagined that during all these years he must have suffered in more than one ways. Apart from the mental anxiety of his involvement in a criminal case which ultimately led to his conviction, he must have incurred a lot of expense. Additionally his reputation has also received a setback. The record shows that he has remained in jail for more than 3 months. I had the opportunity to see the accused personally in Court. He is an aged person, cripple by right arm. There is nothing to show that there was any deep rooted enmity between the parties. The accused seemed to have flared up suddenly, as the other party accused his children of stealing chicken. Moreover, the injuries attributed to the accused are simple in nature excepting one injury regarding which firm opinion was never recorded.
9. Taking all the above considerations into account, I share the view of the learned counsel for the parties that the imprisonment already suffered by the accused will meet the ends of justice.
10. Accordingly as stated above, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused was reduced to the one he had already undergone.