' A case under section 307/34, P.P.C. Was registered against Khuda Bakhsh, Muhammad Ramzan, Ghulam Muhammad and Haq Nawaz, with Police Station Bhakkar Saddar, for a murderous assault on the complainant Elahi Bakhsh, his brother Khuda Bakhsh and his father Allah Rakha. 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 guilty and sentenced Khuda Bakhsh, appellant, to seven years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,20,000 or in default in payment further R.I. For 1-3/4 years. Muhammad Ramzan, Ghulam Muhammad and Haq Nawaz, appellants, were also found guilty and sentenced to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000 each or in default 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, P.W.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 meanwhile, appellants Khuda Bakhsh, armed with hatchet, Muhammad Ramzan with Soti, their father Ghulam Muhammad, and Haq Nawaz, 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 a 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 F.I.R., 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.P.B. Was lodged by Elahi Bakhsh, P.W.2, on 12-9-1976 at 12-30 p.m. At the hospital. It was recorded by Ahmad Yar, Head Constable, P.W.9. Formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 was recorded the same day.
' The case was partly investigated by Ahmad Yar, Head Constable P.W.9, who recorded the F.I.R.
Exh.P.B., and recorded the statements of injured at the hospital under section 161, Cr.P.C. The case was also investigated by Ch. Faqir Muhammad, A.S.I. P.W.10 who prepared the site plan Exh.P.L. And obtained blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo. Exh.P.A. He arrested Ghulam Muhammad, Muhammad Ramzan and Haq Nawaz, accused on 20-9-1976, and secured Sota P.1 at the instance of Muhammad Ramzan vide memo. Exh.P.C. Ghulam Muhammad accused on 20-9-1976 while in custody, got recovered Sota P.2 from his residential house vide memo. Exh.P.D. Haq Nawaz got recovered from his residential house Sota P.3 vide memo. Exh.P.E. Khuda Bakhsh was arrested on 21-9-1976. On 24-9-1976, Khuda Bakhsh got recovered hatchet P.4 from his house which was secured vide memo. Exh.P.F. After necessary investigation, he submitted the challan against the accused persons.
3. Dr. Muhammad Sadiq, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bhakkar, P.W.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, P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 8, respectively. The doctor who examined the injured, appeared as P.W.7. The investigation was conducted by Ahmad Yar and Ch. Faqir Muhammad, P.Ws.9 and 10, respectively. The rest of the witnesses are of formal nature, therefore, need not be discussed.
5. At the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellants made statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. 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 eyewitnesses 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 eyewitness 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, P.Ws. 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 eye-witnesses were cross-examined at length but the defense could not bring anything on record to indicate that they are not truthful witnesses or they have any motive to falsely implicate the appellants: Their statements are consistent and inspire confidence. In such circumstances, I hold that uncorroborated statements of the witnesses can safely be relied upon.
' The learned counsel for the appellants had also submitted that the occurrence took place in 1976, whereas the appellants were convicted on 3-21980, 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 the 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 increased 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 result that he was totally incapacitated from one hand, as observed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, I increase the sentence of fine from Rs,20,000 to Rs,30,000 or in default 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,1,000 to Rs,5,000 each, or in default 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 P.W. The rest of the fine, if recovered shall be euqally distributed amongst the injured P.Ws. In equal shares as compensation. The fine shall be paid within three months from today. The appeal is dismissed in the terms stated above.