Muhammad Ibrahim and 3 others, petitioners, alongwith Mst. Fatima were tried under section 325/452/34, P.P.C. For committing house tress-pass after having made preparation to cause hurt and for causing grievous injury to Muhammad Khaliq P.W. On 14-6-1979 in village Kakrali of Police Station Kharian. They denied the charge.
2. To prove its case, prosecution produced 5 witnesses. Muhammad Khaliq P.W.1 is the injured witness. He stated that the petitioners and Mst. Fatima had launched attack on him and had caused injuries with blunt weapon on his person. Dr. Muhammad Ali P.W.4 has proved the medico- legal report. He found as many as 7 injuries on the person of Muhammad Khaliq, out of which one injury on the nose was declared grievous. Muhammad Munir P.W.2, Ahmad Din P.W.3 and Mst.
Hamida P.W.5 have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They claim to have seen the petitioners causing injuries with blunt weapon on the person of Muhammad Khaiiq P.W. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied the incriminating circumstances. They raised the plea of false implication on account of enmity. They produced two witnesses namely Muhammad Asghar P.W.1 and Ghulam Nabs P.W.2 in defence, who stated that the petitioners had not participated m the occurrence. Believing the prosecution evidence and disbelieving the plea of the accused and the defence evidence, the trial Court convicted the petitioners under section 452/325/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them as under: Under section 325/34, P.P.CFour years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.5,000 each.
Under section 452/34, P.P.C Three years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.3,000 each.
On appeal, the learned appellate Court while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners reduced the sentence to six months' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,500 each, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Radiologist was not produced; that there are discrepancies in the statements of the eye-witnesses; that the defence version and the defence evidence has not been considered and that the P.W s. Are related inter se; Mst. Fatima co-accused was acquitted on the same evidence and the petitioners have been convicted without independent corroboration. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the appellate Court.
3. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the two Courts below were mindful of the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as by the accused/petitioners. The judgments contain the names of the defence witnesses and what they had stated in their evidence. The defence witnesses had stated that they had seen the parties quarrelling, so the defence evidence does not take the case of the petitioners any Further. The case of Mst. Fatima was quite distinguishable. So her acquittal will not shake the credibility of the eye- witnesses to the extent of the petitioners.
Abdul Khaliq, P.W.1, has stated that the petitioners had attacked and caused him injuries with Dangs. Muhammad Ali, Doctor, had found seven injuries on the person of Abdul Khaliq P.W.1 out of which one injury was found grievous. The statement of the eye-witnesses could not/should not be disbelieved on account of their relation with Abdul Khaliq P.W.1. The eye-witnesses have successfully faced the test of cross-examination. I do not see any material/major contradiction in the statements of the eye-witnesses, although there are some minor/immaterial discrepancies, which are but natural in the statement of truthful witnesses.
4. Despite believing the prosecution evidence and disbelieving the defence version and the defence evidence, I feel that since no X-Ray examination of the alleged grievous injury of Abdul Khaliq P.W. Has been brought in evidence so the' petitioners could not have been convicted under section 325, P.P.C. So they are convicted under section 323, P.P.C. And sentenced to three months'
R.I. Each. The petitioners by now have undergone agony of protected trial. They were sent to jail thrice before they could be released on bail by the trial Court/appellate Court/this Court. So the sentence of six months' R.I. Awarded to them under section 452, P.P.C. Is reduced to three months'
R.I. Each. The fine awarded by the trial Court the sentence in lieu thereof and the direction given for the payment,, of the fine to the injured P.W. Are maintained. With the modification, the revision is dismissed. The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the trial Court within 15 days from today, failing which the trial Court shall issue warrants for their arrest. On arrest they will be sent to jail to serve the sentence.