Appellant, Haq Nawaz son of Ghulam Muhammad was sent up to face trial by Police Station, Bhakkar, for an offence under section 325 P.P.C. Magistrate Section 30. Bhakkar vide his judgment dated, 21-12-1982, convicted and sentenced him to 7 years' R.1. And a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default one year R.I. The fine if recovered shall be paid to the legal hers of the deceased. He was also awarded three months' R.I.
The prosecution story in bricf as disclosed by Naurang complainant was that the appellant was his neighbour. Appellant's son Ghulam Abbas took his sickle. Khadim Hussain son of the complainant went to the house of the appellant to bring the sickle back. They quarrelled with each other over the sickle. In the meanwhile the appellant's father armed with Soti came to the spot and inflicted injuries on the head of Khadim Hussain. The first informant stepped forward to rescue his son but the accused gave two Soti blows on his left arm. The commotion attracted Sher Muhammad, Nausher and Shabbir who rescued the son of the first informant and witnessed the occurrence.
At the trial the prosecution produced 8 witnesses in support of its case. Fida Hussain had witnessed the recovery of Soti P.1 at the instance of the appellant. Fateh Khan, P.W.2, M.H.C., had recorded the F.I.R. Exh P.B., on the statement of Naurang P.W. He also prepared injury statement, Exh P.C. Of Naurang and injury statement Exh. P.D. Of Khadim Hussain and sent both the injured to the hospital for examination. The doctor who had examined Naurang and Khadim Hussain appeared as P.W.3 The eye witness account was furnished by Naurang, Khadim Hussain both the injured, Nausher and Ghulam Shabbir, P.W s. 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively. The case was investigated,, by Sultan Sikandar, H.C. P.W.8.
At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant,, that the case against the appellant was extremely doubtful. Submitted that the occurrence took place in the house of the appellant, therefore, he had acted in the right of self---defence. Submitted that it was not a premeditated attack but the fight took place at the spur of the moment, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant was excessive contentions were opposed by learned Additional Advocate-General.
2. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance.
The prosecution has mainly relied upon the ocular account to establish its case. The witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on the record to indicate that there was any enmity between them. The appellant and the witnesses were neighbours and there had not been any unpleasant incident earlier. It is prosecution's own case that Ghulam Abbas son of the appellant was 9/10 years whereas Fida Hussain son of the first informant was 19/20 years. If both of them as asserted by the prosecution had quarrelled it can safely be imagined that Fida Hussain must have given beating to the younger boy and, in such circumstances, if the father came to defend him, it would be quite natural. Keeping these things in view, I feel there is some force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the sentence of imprisonment as well as solitary confinement was too harsh in such circumstances. As has already been. Held the prosecution evidence does inspire confidence but the quantum of sentence requires reconsideration. The appellant caused grievous injuries to Fida Hussain on his most vital part i.e. Head. A notice to the appellant,, who also issued to show cause why the sentence of fine be not enhanced. Learned counsel concedes that the sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 be increased to Rs.20,000 and the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. .
3. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the evidence, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any doubt. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The sentence of imprisonment is, however, reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.
The sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 (ten thousand) is increased to Rs.20,000 (Twenty thousand). The sentence in case of default is maintained. It is, however, directed that the entire amount if recovered shall equally be distributed between both the injured. The appeal is I dismissed in the terms stated above.