Jalal Din and Ashiq, petitioners, alongwith Arif (acquitted accused) were tried under section 307/34, P.P.C. For murderous assault on Liaqat Ali P.W. On 5-6-1985. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. Bashir Ahmad P.W.1, Muhammad Abdullah P.W.2, Liaqat Ali P.W.3 and Hayat P.W.4 are the eye- witnesses of the occurrence. Liaqat Ali P.W. Stated that Ashiq and Arif (acquitted accused) gave him Sota blows whereas Jalal Din squeezed testicles. Bashir Ahmad P.W.1, Muhammad Abdullah P.W.2 and Hayat P.W.4 have supported the statement made by Liaqat Ali P.W.3. Dr. Khalid Mahmood had medically examined Liaqat Ali. The injured witness remained in hospital for more than twenty- two days. Since Dr. Khalid Mahmood had gone abroad, so Ashiq Hussain Dogar, Dispenser, was produced as P.W.8 to identify the handwriting and signature of Dr. Khalid Mahmood on the, medico-legal report. He has proved the medico-legal report. There were eight injuries on the person of Liaqat P.W. Injury No.7 was a contusion with swelling 6 c.m. x 6 c.m. In between the penis and testicles with blood from urethra. This injury was declared grievous. The other injuries were simple caused with blunt weapon.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioners denied all the incriminating circumstances. They did not produce any witness in defence. However, Jalal Din petitioner tendered documents Exh. D.A. To Exh. D.E. In defence.
4. The trial Court, vide its judgment dated 6-11-1989 acquitted Arif co---accused but convicted the petitioners under section 307/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to three years' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs.500 each. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, on 13-12-1989.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the eye-witnesses are not reliable; that Dr. Khalid Mahmood was not produced in evidence and that no case punishable under section 307, P.P.C. Is made out against the petitioners. The learned State counsel has opposed him.
6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that the eye-witnesses had no serious enmity to involve the petitioners falsely in the case. They have faced the test of cross-examination. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out material discrepancies, major contradictions or dishonest improvements in their statements. I do not see any valid and cogent reasons to discard their statements. The petitioners have not been able to rebut the prosecution case and the evidence produced by it. The documents tendered by Jalal Din do not take the case of the defence any further. For these reasons, there remains no doubt that Liaqat P.W. Received injuries at the hands of the petitioners.
7. As far the nature of offence committed by the petitioners, I find that Ashiq petitioner had given simple injuries with blunt weapon, so he committed an offence punishable under section 323; P.P.C.
He could give serious injury on the vital part of the body of Liaqat P.W. With his Sota but he did not do so. So his conviction under section 307, P.P.C. Is set aside, instead he is convicted under section 323, P.P.C.
8. As far Jalal Din petitioner, the doctor has not declared the injury allegedly caused by him, dangerous to life, although the same has been declared "grievous". This being the position, his conviction under section 307, P.P.C. Cannot be sustained, instead he is convicted under section 325, P.P.C.
9. This brings me to the question of sentence. Ashiq petitioner was sent to jail thrice. After the rejection of his appeal, he remained in jail for one month before he could be released on bail by this Court. So the agony of trial coupled with the imprisonment suffered by him as an under-trial prisoner and as convict would meet the case. So far as Jalal Din petitioner is concerned, he is an old man of about 70 years of age. He is the father of Ashiq petitioner and Arif (acquitted accused).
After the rejection of his appeal, he remained in jail for one month before he could be released on bail by this Court in this revision. In view of his old age, I do not think it proper to send him back to jail. So in addition to the imprisonment he has already suffered as a convict and as an under-trial prisoner, I sentence him to a fine Rs.15,000 or in default thereof one and a half years' R.I. He will deposit the fine in the trial Court within one month from today, failing which the trial Court will issue warrants for his arrest and send him to jail to serve the sentence in lieu of fine. Disposed of accordingly.