MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, CJ.- Ramzan, Muhammad Khan, Meharban and Nawab, all real brothers, were convicted under section 325/34 of the PPC for causing injuries to Khan Muhammad complainant and were sentenced to R.I for two years and a fine of Rs.1000/- each, or in default in the payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For three months each, vide judgment dated 24.1.1988 of Magistrate 1st Class, Bhakkar. They challenged their conviction and sentences in the Sessions Court, Bhakkar, but their appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 8.8.1990. They have come up in revision to question the correctness and propriety of the aforesaid judgments.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as revealed at the trial, are that on 17.1.1987 at 10 a.m.
Ramzan petitioner, armed with a hatchet and the remaining three around with Sotas attacked Khan Muhammad complainant and caused him as many as twenty eight injuries.
The motive alleged by the complainant in the FIR was that the petitioners had a suspicion that his son Shafqat had illicit relations with their sister Mst. Hamida. They complained to him, but he reprimanded them, upon which they launched attack on him.
3. Khan Muhammad was medically examined by Dr .Rashid Jalil on the same day who found 28 injuries on his person, out of which injury No.1 (swelling on nose) injury No.13-(lacerated wound on the lower part of left leg)- and injury No.27 (lacerated wound batween little and ring fingers of the left hand.) were declared grievous. The rest were simple.
4. At the preliminary hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners did not challenge the conviction but vehemently contended that in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the motive, the sentence was excessive. However, now he contends that the evidence on the record is not sufficient to warrant the conviction of Ramzan and Nawab petitioners. He submits that Remzan petitioner was allegedly armed with a hatchet, but no sharp weapon injury was found on the person of Khan Muhammad complainant, while no specific injury has been attributed to Nawab petitioner. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the conviction of the petitioners has the support of evidence and is well founded.
5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar in the light of evidence available on the record. Khan Muhammad complainant and his son Muhammad Arshad unanimously deposed that Ramzan petitioner, who was armed with a hatchet, gave a hatchet blow to aforesaid Khan Muhammad. The medical evidence, however, reveals that all the injuries on his person were caused by blunt weapon. According to them, Nawab petitioner was armed with a sota, but no specific injury has been attributed to him. The prosecution case, in so far as these two petitioners are concerned, appears to be doubtful and they are acquitted on benefit of doubt. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
6. The case of Muhammad Khan and Meharban petitioners, however, stands on a different footing.
The ocular evidence, insofar as they are concerned, finds support from the medical evidence.
However, the sentence of R.I. For two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in the circumstances of the present case, seems to be excessive. In cross-examination, Muhammad Arshad PW admitted having stated before the police that his brother Shafqat had illicit relations with Mst. Hamida. He further admitted that the petitioners had complained to his father upon which he reprimanded them, and that was the reason for the attack on him. The conduct of the complainant in reprimanding the accused, instead of consoling them when they made the complaint, must have boiled their blood, and the assault appears to have been committed in the same state of fury.
Furthermore, none of the grievous injuries was specifically attributed to any of the remaining petitioners and all were on the non-vital parts. In the circumstances, while maintaining the conviction of Muhammad Khan and Meharban petitioners under section 325/34 PPC, I reduce their sentence to three months R. I. And a fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they will undergo further R.I. For one month each. The fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Khan Muhammad complainant as compensation. They will be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B of the Cr.P.C.