' Appellant Muhammad Saleem alias Billu, son of Mehar Din, Caste Jat, resident of Pajian, Tehsil and District Lahore, was sent up for trial by Police Station Bhai Pheru, District Kasur, for an offence under section 307/326, P.P.C. The case came up before the Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Kasur, who vide his judgment, dated 18-6-1986 convicted and sentenced Muhammad Saleem to six years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default one year's R.I. Under section 307, P.P.C. He was also sentenced to six years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default one year's R.I. Under section 326, P.P.C. It was, however, directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Said Muhammad Saleem has appealed against his conviction and sentence.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as disclosed by Muhammad Iqbal, is to the effect that on 16-2- 1984 at about 5 p.m., Muhammad Saleem, who is first cousin of the first informant, came to his house. He was served with meals and thereafter he asked the first informant and his brother Liaqat Ali that Mst. Hakim Bibi, a cousin of the first informant, had sent for them in connection with some urgent piece of work. The first informant with his brother Liaqat Ali accompanied Muhammad Saleem. They boarded a bus and went up to Dinanath, where they got down from the bus and started for village where Mst. Hakim Bibi was living. At about 9 p.m. When they were going on the road, suddenly an unknown person appeared from the sugarcane field of Haji Muhammad Siddique and handed over a Toka to Muhammad Saleem. The said unknown person also caught Liaquat Ali in his clasp and asked Muhammad Saleem accused to give such a beating to Liaqat Ali that he should not be in a position to marry Mst. Sughran Bibi. Muhammad Saleem gave a Toka blow on the left leg of Liaqat Ali with the result that lower part of his left leg was completely separated. The first informant tried to rescue his brother but was threatened with dire consequences. When Liaqat Ali fell down, he was given indiscriminate blows by Muhammad Saleem.
' The motive for the commission of the offence was that Liaqat Ali was engaged with one Mst.
Sughran Bibi, and Muhammad Saleem accused also wanted to marry the said lady. In order to remove Liaqat Ali, he committed the present occurrence.
3. F.I.R. Exh.PA. Was lodged by Muhammad Iqbal P.W.1 at 11 p.m. On 162-1984. It was recorded by Rashid Ahmad, A.S.I. P.W.7.
' After registration of the case, Rashid Ahmad, A.S.I. P.W.7 reached the spot and prepared site plan Exh.P.G. He secured blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.B. And obtained the signatures of the witnesses. On 17-2-1984 he was given Chaddar P.2 of the injured which he secured vide memo.
Exli.P.C. He arrested the appellant on 22-2-1984 and then got recovered Toka P3 which was secured vide memo. Exh.P.D. He got the recovery memo. Attested from the witnesses as well. After usual investigation he challaned the accused.
4. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, Medical Officer, Government Rural Dispensary, P.W.6, on 17-2-1984 examined Liaqat Ali, aged 22 years, and found 11 injuries on his person. He declared injuries Nos. 1, 7 and 8 grievous and rest of the injuries were declared simple. All the injuries were caused with sharp-edged weapon within the duration of 24 hours.
' The eye-witness account was furnished by Muhammad Iqbal, Liaqat Ali, P.Ws.1 and 2, respectively.
According to their statements, about six months before their making the statements, the appellant came to their house and told them that Mst. Hakim Bibi, their cousin, had sent for them because of some urgent work. Both of them accompanied him. When they reached near a sugarcane field, an unidentified person emerged from the said field and handed over a Toka to the appellant.
Simultaneously, he raised a Lalkara that Liaqat Ali be given such a beating that he should not be in a position to marry Mst. Sughran Bibi. Both of them were cross-examined at length but the defence did not succeed in shaking the credibility of both of them.
' Muhammad Rashid, P.W.3, witnessed the recovery of blood-stained earth from the spot as well as the recovery of Toka at the instance of the appellant. He signed both the memos. Kamal Din P.W.4 was also recovery witness. Khushi Muhammad, P.W.5 stated that about six months before his making the statement before the Court, at about 9 p.m. Lie heard some commotion. He came to the said place and saw Liaqat Ali P.W. Lying on the ground with his leg completely cut, and the appellant Muhammad Saleem was running away with a Toka in his hand. He also stated that when he reached there, Muhammld Iqbal, P.W., was already present. This witness was also cross- examined at length but nothing has come on the record to discredit his statement. P.W.6 Dr. Muhammad Iqbal had examined the injured. P.W.7 Rashid Ahmad, A.S.I. Had completed the investigation and challaned the accused.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant is highly doubtful. Submits that it has been admitted by the prosecution that there was a dispute with regard to the marriage of Mst. Sughran Bibi, therefore, the eye-witnesses had an enmity with the appellant, and they may not be relied upon. Lastly, it was contended that in any case the sentence was too severe. The contentions have been opr osed by learned counsel for the State.
6. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The eye- witness account has been furnished by Muhammad Iqbal, and Liaqat Ali, P.Ws.1 and 2, respectively.
Both of them were cross-examined at length, but during cross-examination it was not put to them that they had enmity with the appellant that is why a false statement was being made by them.
Even otherwise, if, at all, there could be any illwill, it had to be on the part of the appellant because he was the one who failed to get the hands of Mst. Sughran Bibi, as she was engaged to Liaqat Ali, P.W., three months prior to the incident. The doctor who had examined Liaqat Ali, P.W., had fully corroborated the statements of both the witnesses to the extent that Liaqat Ali had received 11 injuries; all of them were with sharp-edged weapon. The doctor had also observed that his leg was completely cut. After having gone through the statements of both the witnesses, I am convinced that the statements do not even require corroboration. They are so confidence inspiring. Yet there is ample corroboration available to the statements of the eye-witnesses. Muhammad Mansha P.W.5 who 'immediately came to the scene of occurrence and saw the appellant running away from the scene, has corroborated the statements of the eye-witnesses to the extent that the appellant was present at the spot armed with a Toka, and Liaqat All had a number of injuries on his person. Similarly, the doctor who had examined the injured, also corroborated the ocular account.
The recovery of Toka can also be used as a corroboration.
' At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath, wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question, he stated that he was involved in the case so that he could not marry Mst. Sughran Bibi. He, however, refused to appear in his defence on oath and also declined to produce defence evidence. As far as the plea taken up by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, no importance can be attached to it. While cross-examining Muhammad Iqbal and Liaqat Ali, P.Ws.1 and 2, they were not even suggested that the appellant was being involved in this case so that he could not marry said Mst. Sughran Bibi. Similarly, the statements of both the witnesses have not even been challenged so far as it relates to the engagement of Mst. Sughran Bibi with Liaqat Ali, P.W., three months prior to the occurrence.
' For what has been discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any doubt against the appellant. Resultantly, the appeal fails which is accordingly, dismissed.