The petitioner was tried along with one Muhammad Sharif for the commission of an offence under section 307/34, P. P. C. For making a murderous assault op Abdur Rehman (P. W. 4). Muhammad Sharif was acquitted while the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to the three years' rigorous, imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge.
2. The evidence is that on the night of 13th of June, 1968, there was a mela going on in Kotla Khaira, Police Station Satra in the. District of Sialkot. There was a dancing performance going on at 2'o clock in the night and the petitioner wets giving veils to the dancing party. The petitioner insisted that while announcing the award of the vails he should be described as "Sher Babbar". He thereafter left the mela along with his co-accused. They came on horse backs and started shouting taunts on the members of the Meo community and dared any one of them to come before them. Abdur Rehman along with Asoo (P. W. 6), Naul Khan (P. W. 8) and Muhammad Ishaq (P. W. 9) who were all members of the Meo tribe advanced towards the petitioner and returned the abuse that the accused were hurling against them. Muhammad Shafi thereupon fired from his pistol which hit Abdur Rahman on the left thigh. Muhammad Shafi thereafter fired a number of shots and then the accused left after hurling challenge to the members of the Meo community.
3. It is the common case of the prosecution as well as of the defence that there is bad blood between the Meo community and the petitioner. Chhajju Khan who claims himself to be the leader of the Meo community and according to the evidence is a cousin of Abdur Rehman, the injured P.
W. In this case, was involved in a murder case and the present petitioner appeared as a witness against him at the trial. The father of Muhammad Sharif the co-accused of the petitioner was also a prosecution witness in this case against Chhajju Khan. The animosity appears to have continued and the suggestion of the prosecution is that Muhammad Shafi petitioner developed a hostile and defiant mood towards the Meo community during the dancing and it is why he insisted that in their presence he should be called a 'Sher Babbar'.
4. During the investigation a pistol was recovered from Muhammad Sharif who, however, was acquitted even from the charge of possessing an unlicensed revolver.
5. The fate of the present case, hangs on the evidence of Abdur Rehman (P. W. 4), the injured witness, Asoo (P. W. 6), Naul Khan (P. W. 8) and Muhammad Ishaq (P. W. 9). All of them are the members of the Meo community.
6. The defence taken up by the petitioner at the trial was that he had been involved due to enmity.
It appears from the trend of the cross-examination that the defence actually was that Chhajju Khan had himself fired at Abdur Rehman P. W. In order to involve the petitioner. I need not be detained on examining this defence plea which appears to be absurd on the face of it. The fact that all the witnesses are members of the Meo community does not detract from their veracity. The petitioner has consistently been described as the sole assailant #ad there being' only one injury with a revolver on the person of Abdur Rehman P. W., it cannot be said that there has been any substitution in this case. It is, therefore, proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Muhammad Shafi fired' at Abdur Rehman P. W. In the manner as alleged by the prosecution.
7. Mr. Ghulam Mujtaba, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however; says that Abdur Rehman was guilty of embellishing his story by saying at the trial that the petitioner insisted that he should be called a 'Sher Babbar' and that he had sat on the chest of the injured person. Both these facts are not mentioned in the first information report and Abdur Rehman was duly confronted with these omissions, These may be embellishments but the: evidence of the assault is, unassailable.
The injury having been caused by a revolver ordinarily an intention to murder should be deducible from the act of the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel has, however, raised a legal objection. Dr. A. N. M. Haq who had examined the injured person and had opined that the injury was grievous was not examined at the trial. In his place: Muhammad Munir Dispenser (P. W. 12) appeared and proved the carbon copies of the medical certificates. We find from an order passed or. 2nd of May 1969, by the learned Magistrate who was cognizant of the case that the above doctor had left West Pakistan for good resigning his job and was at the relevant time residing in East Pakistan the learned Magistrate found that insistence on his presence may entail delay and unnecessary expense and, therefore, dispensed with his appearance. 'The learned counsel says that while they carbon copies could be admitted in evidence as they came from the official records, it has not been positively proved by any expert opinion that the injury on the person of Abdur Rehman was grievous. He, therefore, urges that no conviction under section 307, P. P. C. Was sustainable and that, at best, an offence under section 324, P. P. C. Could be brought home to the petitioner. He also urges that during the last War the wife of the petitioner died as a result of bombardment by the enemy and his minor children about 3 to 5 years of age are now living with some of his relatives. He urges that this is an extenuating circumstance for reduction of sentence. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel. I alter the conviction of the petitioner from section 307, P. P. C. To one under section 324, P. P. C. In they circumstances of the present case I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to that already undergone. He shall be released forthwith unless he is lawfully required to be detained in connection with some other case. The revision petition is decided accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.