' Appellants Rustam Ali son of Sher Muhlammad, Abdul Razaq son of Rustam Ali, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Nazir sons of Abdul Majeed were tried by a Magistrate at Shakargarh on the charges under section 324/307/148/149, P.P.C. For having caused injuries to Muhammad Anwar, Master Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Munir. Vide judgment, dated 31st of August, 1986, the learned Magistrate found all the appellants guilty on the aforesaid charge, and accordingly, the appellants were convicted on the charge under section 148, P.P.C. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. On the charge under section 307/149, P.P.C., they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years each and to pay fine of Rupees five thousand each, or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year each. On the charge under section 324/149, P.P.C., the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., each of the appellants was directed to pay Rupees five thousand as compensation, or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. It was further directed that out of the amount of compensation Rs,15,000 shall be paid to Muhammad Munir injured P.W. And Rs,5,000 to Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Anwar injured P.Ws. Each. It was also directed that all the sentences would run concurrently, and benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall also be given to the appellants. It may be stated here that one Ilyas was also a member of the unlawful assembly of the appellants, but he was absconding, therefore, proceedings under section 512, Cr.P.C. Were taken against him.
2. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 18th of March, 1983 at 9-00 a.m. In a field in village Fatui within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kot Nenan District Sialkot. In brief, the prosecution case as narrated by the complainant was that on the fateful day at about 9-00 a.m., the complainant Muhammad Anwar alongwith his paternal-cousin Master Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Munir were cutting fodder in their land when the appellants Rustam Ali armed with a hatchet, Muhammad Iqbal son of Abdul Majeed armed with hatchet, Ilyas (absconder), Abdul Razaq, Siddique and Nazir armed with Dangs while raising Lalkaras emerged at the scene of occurrence.
Appellant Rustam Ali inflicted a hatchet blow on the head of Munir, as a result of which, he fell down. The complainant and Master Muhammad Iqbal came forward when Iqbal son of Abdul Majeed inflicted a hatchet blow on the head of Master Iqbal, while Ilyas absconder, Siddique and Nazir appellants inflicted Dang blows on the head and finger of Master lqbal. Appellant Razaq inflicted a Dang blow on the head of the complainant. On the hue and cry raised by the complainant Muhammad Yunus P.W. Also reached at the scene of occurrence.
3. Motive for the commission of offence as stated by the complainant in the F.I.R. Was that on 17th of March, 1983 a son of Master Muhammad Iqbal namely Aamir Iqbal and Abdul Majeed son of Nizam Din both students while returning from their school had quarrelled with each other on account of which, the appellants had launched the attack, as stated above.
4. For lodging the F.I.R. Complainant P.W.1 was proceeding to the police station from the hospital, when at Lorry Ada Kot Nenan, he came across Sub-Inspector Liaqat All (since dead), who recorded the statement Exh.PA. Of the complainant -at 5-00 p.m. And sent the same to the police station for the registration of a case. At the police station, the formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 was drawn by Muhammad Ashraf, Muharrir Head Constable P.W.7.
5. All the injured were examined by Dr. Muhammad Akram Incharge Government Dispensary, Mengari and on the person of Muhammad Munir injured the following injury was noticed: ' An incised wound 10 x 1/2 c.m. Bone cut in the middle of the head caused by a sharp-edged weapon. Injury was declared grievous.
6. On the person of Iqbal injured the following injuries were noticed.
(i) An incised wound 4 x 1/2 c.m. x skin deep on the head in midline.
(ii) A contused wound 5 x 1/2 c.m. x skin deep on the head 3 c.m. Behind injury No,1.
(iii) A contused wound 3 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x skin deep on the head 8 c.m. Above the right ear.
(iv) A contusion of 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the base of right index finger.
7. On the person of Muhammad Anwar injured the following injury was noticed:-- ' A contusion 4 x 2 c.m. In the middle of the head.
' The injury was caused with a blunt weapon, and was simple in nature.
8. Liaqat Ali Sub-Inspector who was investigating this case before the commencement of the trial died, and through secondary evidence the statement recorded by him was proved.
9. On 25th of April, 1983, the appellant Abdul Razaq while in custody led to the police and got recovered a Sota P.2 from his house, and Rustam All appellant while in custody also got a hatchet P.1 recovered. Both these weapons were taken into custody vide memos. Exhs.P.C. And P.B.
Respectively attested by Amjad Khan P.W.4, Rashid Ahmad Patwari (not produced) besides the Investigating Officer.
10. On 14th of May, 1983 appellant Muhammad Iqbal while in custody led to the recovery of hatchet P.S. Appellant Nazir while in custody got recovered a Dang P.4, while Siddique appellant while in custody also got recovered a Dang P.3 which were taken into possession vide memos. Exhs.P.F., P.E.
And P.D. Attested by Jalal Din P.W.5, Abdul Ghani (not produced) besides the Investigating Officer.
11. To prove its case the prosecution at the trial placed reliance upon the ocular testimony furnished by Muhammad Anwar P.W.1, Master Muhammad Iqbal P.W.2 and Muhammad Munir P.W.3.
Muhammad Yunus an eye-witness cited in the F.I.R. Was not produced. The prosecution also placed reliance upon the recovery and the evidence as to the motive.
12. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellants denied the charge, and stated that on account of party faction and previous enmity, they had been falsely involved in this case. Appellant Abdul Razaq also appeared in the witness-box, and his statement under section 340, Cr.P.C. Was recorded. In the said statement appellant Abdul Rang stated that at the time of the occurrence, he was not in village Fateh Pur.
13. Appellant Rustam Ali during his examination under section 340, Cr.P.C. Stated that he was not present at the time and scene of occurrence, but was in Narowal.
14. Appellant Nazir in his examination under section 340, Cr.P.C. Stated that Master Iqbal P.W.2, Muhammad Munir P.W.3 and Muhammad Anwar P.W.1 had injured his father and in retaliation his father had also injured them. He further stated that neither he nor his brothers had participated in the occurrence.
15. Appellants Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Iqbal declined to make any statement under section 340, Cr.P.C.
16. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants and the State, I have carefully perused the entire record of this case, and I have also heard the learned counsel at length.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants in the first instance contended that the F.I.R. In this case was lodged with inordinate delay, and no explanation exists on the record to explain the delay. Hence, chances of false implication of the appellants after due deliberations in this case could not be ruled out. I have considered this aspect of the case, and I do not find any substance in the same.
Delay has been explained satisfactorily. Occurrence took place at 9-00 a.m., and the injured were removed to the hospital, and obviously the first and foremost duty in such like cases is to save the lives of the injured through medical treatment. All the injured reached the hospital at about 1-30 p.m. Where they were medically examined and at about 5-00 p.m. Muhammad Anwar P.W.1 had proceeded to lodge the first information report. In my view, such type of delay is natural in rural areas, therefore, delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is not of such type so as to cast doubt upon the prosecution case.
18. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the defence version as given by Muhammad Nazir appellant was nearer the truth. Father of Muhammad Nazir appellant namely Abdul Majeed on the one side and Muhammad Iqbal P.W.2, Munir Ahmad P.W.3 and Muhammad Anwar P.W.1 on the other hand had quarrelled with each other. In fact, Abdul Majeed had injured Iqbal, Munir and Anwar P.Ws. Plea raised by Muhammad Nazir appellant is fantastic, and nothing has been brought on the record to show that it was Abdul Majeed father of appellant Muhammad Nazir who had injured three P.Ws. Appellant Rustam Ali in his cross-examination admitted that Abdul Majeed father of appellant Muhammad Nazir had sworn an affidavit in which he had stated that Iqbal and others had not given beating to him, but it was Rustam and Yusuf who gave beating to Abdul Majeed. Appellant Rustam Ali further admitted that father of Muhammad Nazir appellant had instituted a private complaint against Yusuf and Sarfraz.
19. Appellant Muhammad Nazir in his cross-examination admitted that Abdul Majeed was his father, and a case in respect of the injuries caused to his father was registered, but the said case was cancelled.
20. After anxious consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view, that the defence has tried to create a confusion, therefore, such plea does not at all help the defense. I have carefully examined the plea of alibi raised by Rustam Ali and Abdul Razaq appellants. No suggestion whatsoever was given to any of the P.Ws. About such plea. Even in their examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellants did not raise the plea of alibi. Therefore, such plea is an afterthought and hence cannot reflect upon the prosecution case.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew the attention of this Court to some discrepancies. I have carefully examined these discrepancies, which are not such, so as to demolish the prosecution case. Such discrepancies are bound to occur. Hence, no weight can be attached to such immaterial discrepancies.
22. As far as the ocular testimony is concerned, presence of three witnesses on account of the stamp of injuries on their person cannot be disbelieved. The crucial question is whether the eye- witnesses are speaking the truth qua the participation of the appellants. After anxious consideration, I am of the view that the eye-witnesses are the truthful witnesses. Although they were cross-examined at length, but their credit could not be shaken. The medical examination of all the three eye-witnesses and the nature of injuries received by them corroborate the ocular testimony qua the use of weapons. Injuries on the person of the injured P.Ws. Are not self-suffered, therefore, I am of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt against the appellants. Therefore, this appeal must fail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. However, adverting to the quantum of sentence awarded under section 307/149, P.P.C. I am of the view that the same requires reconsideration. Sentence awarded to the appellants under section 307/149, P.P.C. Is reduced to five years instead of seven years as ordered by the learned trial Court. Sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs,5,000 to Rs,2,000. Award of compensation is also severe, therefore, I set aside the award, and instead it is directed that out of the total fine amounting to Rs,10,000 if recovered Rs,5,000 shall be paid to the injured Muhammad Munir, while the rest of the two injured witnesses namely Master Iqbal and Muhammad Anwar shall be paid Rs,2,500 each. With these observations, this appeal is dismissed.