A case under sections 307/325/149 and 148, P. P. C. Was registered against the petitioners and their three co-accused, at Police Station Pakpattan, on the 26th of September 1969, at the instance of Muhammad Din complainant who received as many as seventeen injuries in addition to five received by his companion Hidayat Ullah. According to the com--plainant's version, Jamal Din petitioner No. 1, armed with a stick, Muhammad Ramzan petitioner No. 2 armed with a gun alongwith their co-accused Shahbaz and Mamma, ambushed at a place where Hakim A.I accused took him on a false pretext. Petitioner No. 2 fired in the air to scare away any possible rescuers of the complainant while others armed with dangs belaboured him and Hidayat Ullah. The learned trial Magistrate framed charge against the petitioners under section 307/149, P. P. C. Etc. Vide his order dated the 13th of January 1971, which is now impugned before me.
2. Learned counsel contends that even if full reliance is placed on the version set out in the F. I. R.
And deposed to at the trial by the prosecu--petition witnesses, the offence would at best fall within the purview of section 325/149, P. P. C. Inasmuch as it is nobody's case that Hakim Muhammad Ramzan who was allegedly armed with a gun tried to shoot Muhammad Din complainant or Hidayat Ullah P. W. It is next submitted that the nature of the injuries sustained by the two injured persons which were mostly bruises and abrasions would clearly detract from the intention of murder.
3. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the State that no less than 17 injuries were inflicted on the complainant of which at least three landed on the head, in addition to five inflicted on Hidayat Ullah P. W.
4. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, in the light of the statements of the prosecution witnesses placed on the record, I find that the inference of the existence of a prima facie intention to murder the complainant, as arrived at by the learned trial Magistrate, is not justified by the nature and dimensions of the injuries sustained by the two injured persons. It is not the prosecution's case that Hakim Muhammad Ramzan had tried to kill any one of them. All the injuries sustained by the two P. Ws. Were declared simple except injury No. 14 of Muhammad Din complainant which had resulted in the knock--ing out of the two incisors, Even otherwise, a person found guilty under the lesser offence of section 325, P. P. C. Would be liable to the award of a maximum punishment of seven years' R. I.
5. Before parting with this case, I would like to observe that normally this Court should be reluctant to directly entertain such cases where a remedy is available to an aggrieved person before the Sessions Judge, which is a Court of concurrent jurisdiction. Since, however, it was a short matter and the entire relevant evidence had been placed on the record by the learned counsel for the petitioner I did not consider it necessary to refer it to the learned Sessions Judge and proceeded to dispose it of myself. However, this tendency of rushing directly to this Court and short-circuiting the legal procedure is strongly deprecated.