Ali Muhammad Khan, petitioner was tried under section 307, P.P.C. On the charge of murderous assault on Muhammad Bakhsh (P.W.2) on 12-6-1979 at Deegerwela in Bazar of Tibbi Lundan. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. To prove its case, prosecution produced 6 witnesses. Muhammad Bakhsh (P.W.2) and Pir Bakhsh (P.W.3) have given the ocular account of the occurrence. Muhammad Bakhsh stated that at the eventful time, the petitioner had caused injuries on his person with Chhuri. Pir Bakhsh (P.W.3) supported him. Ghulam Qadir (P.WA) and Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.5) stated that the petitioner had got recovered Chhuri P.3 in their presence which was taken into possession by Ghulam Yasin A.S.I. (P.W.I). Dr. Muhammad Arshad (P.W.6) had examined Muhammad Bakhsh on 13-6-1979 at 7- 30 a.m. He found following injuries on his person:--
(1) An incised wound 1" x 1 /8" x skin deep on the right cheek. ?
(2) An abrasion 3/4" x 1/2" on the right side of forehead.
(3) A stab wound on the right side of the chest measuring 3/4" x 1/8".
The patient,, wits in state of shock at the time of examination. Injuries Nos.1 and 3 were caused by sharp-edged weapon. Injury No.3 was declared dangerous to life. The rest were simple.
3. The petitioner denied all incriminating circumstances. He produced 3 witnesses, namely, Dost Muhammad, Massu and Qadir Bakhsh in defence.
4. The trial Court convicted the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced him to 3 years' R.I.
And a fine of Rs.1,000 in default whereof 6 months' R.I. With the direction that the fine, if recovered, half of it be paid to Muhammad Bakhsh, injured P.W. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur on 3-11-1982, hence this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the prosecution case and the veracity of the witnesses produced by it. Challenging the nature of the crime, the learned counsel submitted that since danger to life of the patient was not imminent and the injuries were not likely to cause death in the natural course of things, therefore, the crime committed by the petitioner was punishable under section 324, P.P.C. And not under section 307, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the State has not opposed the non-application of section 307, P.P.C. He was, however, of the view that since injury No.3 having been declared dangerous to life, was grievous within the meaning of section 320, P.P.C., therefore, the offence committed by the petitioner falls under section 326, P.P.C.
6. I have consciously attended to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the, petitioner. I find that out of three injuries caused by the petitioner on the person of Muhammad Bakhsh P.W. Two were minor in nature and the third was declared `dangerous to life'. The doctor has nowhere stated that injury No.3 was likely to cause death in the natural and ordinary course of events. The petitioner was carrying Chhuri. He could cause more injuries with much more force on the vital parts of the body and also could repeat injury on the body of Muhammad Bakhsh P.W. But he did not do so. He did not cause injury on the left side of the chest.' Although injury No.3 has been designated `dangerous to life' yet the doctor has neither stated in the medico-legal report nor in statement before the Court that danger to life was imminent. Before initiating assault the petitioner had not announced his intention to kill Muhammad Bakhsh P.W. So the intention of the petitioner has to be inferred from his conduct. To constitute an offence' punishable under section 307, P.P.C. The act must be done in such a way and with such ingredient that if it succeeded and death was caused by it, the legal result would be murder according to the provisions of sections 299 and 300, P.P.C. Section 307, P.P.C. Makes distinction between an act of an accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see the act and natural consequences thereof. If the accused does an act with such guilty intention that but for some intervening act beyond control of the deceased, the act would have amounted to murder, it falls under section 307, P.P.C. Otherwise not. Furthermore, under section 307, P.P.C. The act must be capable of causing death in the natural course of things. The conduct of the petitioner does not manifest murderous intention in the instant case. The nature of the injury does not travel beyond the consequence of the act of the accused. So the act of the petitioner/accused of causing three injuries to Muhammad Bakhsh P.W. Does not fall under section 307, P.P.C. The arguments of the learned counsel for the State that since the injury has been declared dangerous to life, therefore, the act of the petitioner is punishable under section 32(), P.P.C. Is devoid of force and substance inasmuch as, the doctor has nowhere stated that danger to the life of Muhammad Bakhsh, was imminent. In this respect I would like to quote from Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 21st Edition, page 238: "Grievous hurt as described in section 320, I.P.C. Refers to the following:
(1) Emasculation.
2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
4. Privation of a member or joint.
5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
8. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be, during the space of 20 days, in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
It must be remembered that a mere stay in a hospital for twenty days does not constitute a grievous hurt as some doctors and even lawyers are inclined to believe. It must be proved that during that period the injured man was in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. An injured man may be quite capable of following his ordinary pursuits long before twenty days are over, and yet may prolong his stay in a hospital by interfering with the healing of his wound or for the sake of permanent recovery or greater ease or comfort may be willing to remain as a convalescent in hospital, especially if he is fed at the public expense. Modi had a case in which a man, who had received some bruises over his arms and back as a result of Lathi blows, stayed in a cottage ward of a hospital for over a month, and yet it was held that the injuries were simple.
Danger to, life should be imminent before the injuries are extensive, and implicate important structures or organs, so that they may prove fatal in the absence of surgical aid. For instance a compound fracture of the skull, a wound of a large artery, or rupture of some internal organ, such as the spleen, should be considered `dangerous to life'.
7. Pursuant to the above discussion, the conviction of the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. Is set aside, and instead he is convicted under section 324, P.P.C. This brings the to the question of sentence. The petitioner was arrested on 14-6-1979. He remained in jail as an under-trial prisoner for 6 months. He was convicted on 31-8-1980 and execution,, of sentence was suspended by learned Sessions Judge on 5-10-1980. His appeal was dismissed on 3-11-1982 and he was again sent to jail and released on bail by the High Court on 8-12-1982. Keeping in view the agony of protracted trial and the period he remained in jail as an under-- trial prisoner and convict as well, I feel that the sentence already undergone by him would meet the case. I order accordingly.