' Muhammad Siddiq petitioner and his 3 brothers, were tried under section 326/34, F.P.C. For causing injuries including grievous injury to Muhammad Amin, P.W. On 26-3-1983 in Chak No,16/I-L of Police Station, Renala Khurd.
2. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner and Ghulam Mustafa accused were armed with hatchet and the other accused were armed with Sotas. They launched attack on Muhammad Amin and gave him injuries with their weapons. Muhammad Amin, P.W.3 stated that at the eventful time, the petitioner armed with hatchet alongwith his 3 brothers duly armed, had attacked and injured him with their weapons. Muhammad Sharif P.W.2 and Abdul Razzaq P.W.1 are the eye- witnesses of the occurrence. They have supported him. Dr. Nasim Ahmad P.W.5 had examined Muhammad Amin on 16-3-1983. He found 7 injuries on his person. The thumb of his right hand was chopped off with sharp-edged weapon. The other injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapon. The rest of the evidence was of formal nature.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances.
He did not produce any witness in defence. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 13-2-1986 acquitted the co-accused but convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to 2 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs, 2,000, in default thereof 6 months' R.I. The appeal filed by him .Was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 23-4-1986.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the eye-witnesses have been disbelieved to the extent of the 3 co-accused; that injury No,1 showing that the thumb of the right hand of the petitioner was chopped off does not appear to have been inflicted by the enemy hand and it seems to be a self-suffered injury and that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable. Learned counsel for the State has supported the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
5. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that Muhammad Amin, Abdul Razzaq and Muhammad Sharif, the 3 eye-witnesses have consistently stated that the injury on the thumb of the petitioner was caused by the petitioner with hatchet. The trial Court has not disbelieved the eye-witnesses. It has simply given benefit of doubt to 3 co-accused for the reasons given by it in the judgment and as such acquittal of the 3 co-accused will not warrant rejection of the statements of the eye-witnesses qua, the petitioner. The medical evidence shows that the thumb of the right hand of the petitioner was chopped off as a result of sharp-edged injury. No case of substitution of the petitioner in place of the real offender chopping 'off the thumb of Muhammad Amin P.W.3 has been made out. The eye-witnesses have successfully faced the test of cross- examination. They have no serious enmity to involve the petitioner falsely in the case. The petitioner has not been able to rebut the prosecution case and the evidence produced by it. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the petitioner has rightly been convicted undcr section 326, P.P.C. For causing grievous injury to Muhammad Amin P. W. 2 and the sentence awarded to him is neither harsh nor excessive.
For what has been said above, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed. The trial Court shall issue warrants for the arrest of petitioner and will send him to jail to serve the sentence.