RASHID AZIZ, J.--A case under sections 307/34 PPC was registered against Khuda Bakhsh, Muhammad Ramzan, Ghulam Muhammad and Haq Nawaz, with Police Station Bhakkar Saddar, for a murderous assauIt on the complainant Elahi Bakhsh, his brother Khuda Bakhsh and his father Allah Rukha. The case was tried by Civil Judge 1st Class, with powers of Magistrate section 30, Bhakkar, who vide his judgment dated 3.2.1980, found them guiIty and sentenced Khuda Bakhsh, appellant, to seven years R.I. And a fine of Rs.20,000/- or in defauIt in payment further R.I. For 1 3/4 years. Muhammad Ramzan, Ghulam Muhammad and Haq Nawaz, appellants, were also found guiIty and sentenced to two years R.I. And a fine of Rs.1000/- each or in defauIt six months R.I.
Each.The convicts have appealed against their convictions and sentences.
2. The prosecution story in brief, as given by Elahi Bakhsh, PW-2, is that on 12.9.1976 at about 7 a. m., he with his brother Khuda Bakhsh was ploughing their land, adjacent to their house, with a tractor and a pair of bullocks. Their father Allah Rakha was standing nearby. In the meanwile, appellants Khuda Bakhsh, armed with hatchet, Muhammad Ramzan with Soti their father Ghulam Muhammad, and Haqnawaz, armed with Sotis. Came there and raised a lalkara that they (complainant-side) would be taught a lesson for ploughing the land. Khuda Bakhsh gave hatchet blow on the head of Ghulam Muhammad, whereupon he fell down; it was followed by Muhammad Ramzan whose soti blow landed on the back of Ghulam Muhammad. Haq Nawaz gave a soti blow to Elahi Bakhsh on the head thereafter, Ghulam Muhammad accused gave a soti blow to Allah Rakha on the head; and second blow by Haq Nawaz was given to Ghulam Muhammad on the back. The commotion attracted many people from the locality who rescued the injured from the clutches of the assailants.
The motive, as given in the FIR, is that some land had been sold to the assailants but the possession had not been delivered so far. The accused persons were annoyed for not being given the possession in spite of the fact that they had purchased the land. The injured had also caused some injuries to Khuda Bakhsh accused in self-defence.
Statement Exh.PB was lodged by Elahi Bakhsh, PW-2, on 12.9.1976 at 12.30 p.m. At the hospital. It was recorded by Ahmad yar, Head Constable, PW-9. Formal FIR Exh.PB/1 was recorded the same day.The case was partly investigated by Ahmad yar, Head Constable, PW-9 who recorded the FIR Exh.PB, and recorded the statements of injured at the hospital under section 161 Cr.P.C. The case was also investigated by CH.Faqir Muhammad, ASI, PW-10 who prepared the site-plan Exh.PL and obtained blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo Exh.PA. He arrested Ghulam Muhammad, Muhammad Ramzan and Haq Nawaz, accused, on 20.9.1976, and secured sota P.l at the instance of Muhammad Ramzan vide memo Exh. PC. Ghulam Muhammad accused on 20.9.1976 while in custody, got recovered sota P.2 from his residential house vide memo Exh.PD. Haq Nawaz got recovered from his residential house sota P.3 vide memo Exh.PE.Khuda Bakhsh was arrestd on 21.9.1976. On 24.9.1976, Khuda Bakhsh got recovered hatchet P.4 from his house which was secured vide memo Exh.PFAfter neceassary investigation, he submitted the challan against the accused persons.
3. Dr.Muhammad Sadiq, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Bhakkar, PW-7, examined Khuda Bakhsh on 12.9.1976 and found four injuries on his person. Injury No.1 was declared grievous whereas the rest were simple. Injury No.1 was caused with a sharp edged weapon and the rest were caused with blunt weapons.
On the same day he also examined Allah Rakha and found two injuries on his person caused by a blunt weapon.
On the same day he also examined Elahi Bakhsh and found one simple injury with a blunt weapon on the right side of head. On the same day he also examined Khuda Bakhsh, accused, and found seven injuries on his person. Injury No.2 was with a sharp edged weapon, while the rest were with blunt weapon. After the X-ray report, all the injuries were declared simple.
4. The prosecution in support of its case produced ten witnesses in all. The eye-witness account has been furnished by Elahi Bakhsh, Nazar Hussain, Khuda Bakhsh and Allah Rakha, PWs-2,3,5, and 8, respectively. The doctor who examined the injured, appeared as PW-7. 7 he investigation was conducted by Ahmad Yar and Ch.Faqir Muhammad, PWs- 9 and 10, respectively. The rest of the witnesses are of formal in nature, therefore need not be discussed.
5. At the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellants made statements under section 342 Cr.PC and denied their involvement in the commission of the offence and pleaded innocence.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the eye-witnesses are interested and inimical, therefore, should not have been relied upon. Submits that there is no independent corroboration available, therefore, uncorroborated statements of the witnesses may be ruled out of consideration. Submits that the appellants had purchased the land where the occurrence took place, but the possession was retained by the complainant- side, therefore, the appellants had the right to obtain the possession. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant.
7. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The eye witness account has been furnished by Elahi Bakhsh, Nazar Hussain, Khuda Bakhsh and Allah Rakha. All of them are unanimous that the appellants came armed with hatchet and sotis. And caused them injuries.
Khuda Bakhsh, Allah Rakha and Elahi Bakhsh, PWs were injured as well, therefore, their presence at the spot cannot be disputed. They have named all the appellants and have attributed specific role to each of them. The eyewitnesses were cross-examined at length but the defence could not bring any thing on record to indicate that they are not truthful witnesses or they have any motive to falsely implicate the appellants. Their statements are consistant and inspire confidence. In such circumstances, I hold that uncorroborated statements of the witnesses can safely be relied upon.
The learned counsel 'or the appellants had also submitted that the occurrence took place in 1976, whereas the appellants were convicted on 3.2.1980, and all of them have undergone a substantial period of imprisonment during trial as well as after conviction, therefore, the sentence already undergone would adequately meet the ends of justice. It is correct that the occurrence took place about 14 years earlier and the appellants are on bail for last about seven years. It may not be proper to send them back to jail to undergo the remaining period of their sentence.
Therefore, keeping this aspect in mind, I gave notice to the appellants to show cause why their sentence of fine be not enhanced. The notice was accepted by learned counsel for the appellants who agreed that in such circumstances the sentence of fine may be increasd provided the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to that already undergone. Learned counsel for the complainant has also conceded to the request "of the learned counsel for the appellants.
In these circumstances, while dismissing the appeal of the appellants, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the one they have already undergone. However, the sentences of fine are increased. Khuda Bakhsh appellant had caused grievous injury to the witness with the resuIt that he was totally incapacitated from one hand, as observed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, I increase the sentence of fine from Rs.20000/-to Rs.30,000/-, or in defauIt he shall suffer R.I. For three years. Similarly, while reducing the sentences of Muhammad Ramzan, Ghulam Muhammad and Haq Nawaz, appellants, to what they have already undergone, the fine is increased from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5,000/- each, or in defauIt they shall undergo R.I. For one year each. The fine, if recovered, out of it Rs.30,000/-shall be paid to Khuda Bakhsh, PW. The rest of the fine, if recovered shall be equally distributed amongst the injured PWs.In equal shares as compensation. The fine shall be paid within three months from today. The appeal is dismissed in the terms stated above.