Muhammad Sarwar and Shaukat Ali petitioners stand convicted under section 342/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof further R.I. For 3 months, for causing injuries to Muhammad Akbar Shah P.Ws. On 13-8-1982.
2. To prove its case prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Muhammad Akram Shah P.W.1, Wali Muhammad P.W.3, Muhammad Akram P.W.4, Faqir Muhammad P.W.6 and Akbar Shah P.W.2 are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Muhammad Akbar Shah P.W.2 stated that the petitioner had launched attack on him. Muhammad Sarwar was armed with hatchet and Sakhawat Ali was armed with Lathi and they inflicted injuries with their weapons on his person. The other eye- witnesses supported him. Dr. Javed Hasnain Zaidi P.W.7 had medically examined the injured P.W. He found 19 injuries on the person of the injured out of which 17 were caused by blunt weapon and the remaining 2 were with sharp-edged weapon. All the injuries were simple in nature. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioners denied all the incriminating circumstances. They raised the plea of false implication on account of enmity. Muhammad Hussain D.W.1 and Abdul Salam D.W.2 were produced in defence, who stated that no such occurrence took place in their presence.
4. On the conclusion of the trial, the petitioners were convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to 2 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof 3 months' R.I. On 30-4-1984. The appeal filed by them was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 24-1-1985.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a delay of about 48 hours in lodging the F.I.R.; that the eye-witnesses were inimical towards the petitioners; that the medical certificate produced in the Court was incomplete; that no hatchet was recovered from the petitioners and according to the doctor, the sharp-edged injuries found on the person of the injured could be caused by friendly hand. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State argued that the delay in the F.I.R. Stands satisfactorily explained and that the eye-witnesses are independent having no animus against them to involve falsely.
6. I have considered the matter carefully. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that there were 19 injuries on the person of the victim. He clearly stated that the petitioners had launched attack and caused injuries to him. The occurrence took place in the light of the day, therefore, there is no difficulty as to identify the assailants. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any major contradiction/discrepancy in the statements of the eye- witnesses. I do not see any legal infirmity in the statements of the eye-witnesses. The delay in the F.I.R. Stands satisfactorily explained inasmuch as, the complainant party had first taken the injured to the hospital and thereafter they lodged report. The submissions made by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference with the well-reasoned judgments of the Courts below. As for the sentence, I find that the occurrence took place in the year 1982. The petitioners have suffered agony of trial and out of 19 injuries found on the person of the injured, two were caused by sharp- edged weapon. So I feel inclined to reduce the sentence of the petitioners from 2 years' R.I. To one year's R.I. Each. The fine imposed by the trial Court and the sentence in lieu thereof is maintained.
The trial Court shall issue warrants for the arrest of the petitioners and will send them to jail to serve the remaining sentence.