' Muhammad Arif son of Sakhi Muhammad, aged about 18 years, residen of Dina Tehsil and District Jhelum was convicted by the learned Assistan Commissioner/Magistrate with Section 30 powers, Jhelum, by his order dated the 8th of October 1970, under section 307,1P. P. C. And was sentence to a term of seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 5,000, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The convict has filed the present appeal. Muhammad Zubair complainant has tiled Criminal Revision No, 1257 of 1970 praying that maximum sentence be awarded to the respondent (appellant). This judgment will dispose of both the appeal as well as the revision petition.
2. The incident which resulted in the conviction of the appellant is alleged to have taken place on the 20th of August 1968 at about 8-15 p.m., within the jurisdiction of police station Dina, report regarding which was lodged by Muhammad Zubair son of Fazal Haq on 21st August 1968 at about 3-30 p.m. In his statement the victim of this case Muhammad Zubair son of Fazal Haq aged about 18/19 years, student, resident of Dina, District Jhelum stated that he and the appellant Muhammad Arif were class-fellows up to the 8th clasc. After that their relations continued .To be cordial, a few days prior to the alleged occurrence Muhammad Arif insisted that the complainant should have illicit relations with him. To this demand Muhammad Zubair refused to submit. On the 20th of August 1968, at about 8-15 p.m., Muhammad Zubair was going to the hotel of his father when near the Octroi crossing of Dina Muhammad Arif shouted and asked him to stop. Both of them then started talking and once again Muhammad Arif repeated his previous demand. The complainant again refused. Then all of a sudden Muhammad Arif threw a glass full of acid which he had hidden behind his back. The complainant cried and immediately Muhammad Shabbir son of Fateh Muhammad (P. W. 1) and Muhammad Suleman son of Barkatullah (P. W. 2), who were passing nearby came to the help of Muhammad Zubair. Muhammad Arif threw the glass at the spot and ran away. On account of acid the face of the complainant, other parts of his body and clothes were burnt.
3. In order to prove the above-mentioned incident the prosecution relied on the ocular evidence of Muhammad Shabbir (P. W. 1), Muhammad Suleman (P. W. 2) as well as the recovery of bottle (P. 5) from which the acid was actually thrown on the face of the complainant. In addition to this evidence, the prosecution has also produced, Dr. M. A. H. Siddiqui (P. W. 9) who had examined Muhammad Zubair. The rest is the formal evidence and a reference to that would only be made wherever it is necessary.
' Muhammad Shabbir who was examined as P. W. I deposed that when he reached near Chowk Dina he saw the accused and the complainant standing there talking to each other. At that time the witness alongwith Muhammad Suleman (P. W. 2) was at a distance of 5 to 7 yards. The witness also saw a blue glass in the hand of Muhammad Arif and in the presence of the witness the accused poured something on the head of the complainant, threw the glass and ran away.
According to this witness the accused had a bottle in his left hand. The version of this witness is corroborated by Muhammad Suleman P. W. Who stated that he alongwith Muhammad Shabbir P.
W. Was going to the mosque for Isha prayers and when they reached Dina crossing they saw the accused and the complainant from a distance of about 5 to 7 yards. Both of them were talking to each other and then the witness noticed the appellant throwing something on the face of the complainant from a glass. Muhammad Zubair then cried that he had been burnt. Both Muhammad Suleman and Muhammad Shabbir hurried to the spot. In the meanwhile Muhammad Arif ran ' away. The witness noticed that at that time Muhammad Arif had a bottle in his hand. He also noticed that smoke was coming out from the clothes of Muhammad Zubair. The clothes of Zubair were removed by Muhammad Shabbir P. W. His father was called out and while the clothes were being removed father of the victim arrived and many other people had also assembled at the spot.
The witness who then had a dhoti which he had placed on his shoulder wrapped the same around the waist of Zubair. He was put on a cot and was then carried to the hotel of his father.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Ch. Amjad Khan, has attacked the entire prosecution case and has taken a number of objections. It was contended by the learned counsel that right from the moment when the statement of Zubair was recorded uptil the time of the conclusion of the trial the prosecution case is full of serious defects. Some of the objections are very minor, for according to the learned counsel the alleged incident could not have taken place at the place and in the manner which the prosecution has described, because if at all the appellant had come to throw acid on the face of the complainant then he would have chosen some deserted place so that nobody could see him. Similarly, it was argued that as a matter of fact there was no occasion for bringing acid because according to the prosecution the meeting between the two was not pre- planned, and the appellant was only trying to persuade the victim to submit to his lust and to be physically intimate with him. Learned counsel argued that there was possibility that Muhammad Zubair might have submitted to this, therefore, there was no justification in bringing the acid and throwing it on the face of the complainant. It was argued that there were number of other possibilities and probabilities which render the prosecution case very doubtful. So far as these objections are concerned they have to be decided in the light of the evidence brought on the record especially that of the two eye-witnesses. The mere fact that a particular situation could have been otherwise would not itself either weaken or demolish the prosecution case. I, therefore, do not attach much importance to these objections.
' Learned counsel then argued that there was substantial delay in reporting the matter to the police and this delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution. It was next urged that both the eye-witnesses, namely, Muhammad Shabbir and Muhammad Suleman were the chance witnesses. According to the learned counsel they were not present at the spot when the alleged occurrence took place and the prosecution has simply introduced them to prove its case. The factum of recovery has also been seriously objected to by the learned counsel. Last of all it was argued that so far as Muhammad Qasim (D. W. 1) is concerned, he was initially a -witness for the prosecution but as this witness was not examined by the prosecution the defence put him into the witness-box. Nevertheless the learned counsel vehemently argued that this witness retained his original status as that of a prosecution witness and, therefore, there would be two different versions of the piosecution case itself. It was argued that if there were two different versions of a particular incident then naturally the one which is more in favour of the accused was to be given preference and therefore the learned counsel submitted that the appellant was entitled to its benefit which in the present case would be nothing short of an acquittal.
5. At first I would like to deal - with the evidence of Muhammad Zubair, the victim in this case. The statement of this witness was recorded by Mr. Ali Tahir Zaidi, P. C. S., Magistrate First Class, Lahore, in Mayo -Hospital, Lahore, on 24th September 1969 at 2-00 p.m., after it had been duly certified by the doctor that Muhammad Zubair was in a position to give statement. The witness deposed that he was returning after offering Isha prayers and when he came near the Octroi crossing he met the appellant. The appellant talked to him for a short while and then asked him to have illicit relations with him. Muhammad Zubair refused to submit to this request. The appellant then all of a sudden from behind brought out a hidden glass containing acid and threw it on his face and chest. On his hue and cry Muhammad Suleman and Muhammad Shabbir came to the spot and they removed his clothes. In the meanwhile the appellant ran away throwing the glass at the spot. Prior to the occurrence, the witness deposed, that the appellant was his class-fellow up to 8th class. The sole reason as to why acid had been thrown on the face of the witness was that there was a consistent demand from the appellant to have illicit relations with him which was turned down by the witness.
The witness remained in the hospital for a period of about thirteen months. In cross-examination the witness said that the place of occurrence was at a distance of about one to two yards from 0.1.
Road. He also stated that there was a pro jection (tharra) at that place, the height of which was feet. When the appellant met this witness he was not standing on that projection. He further deposed that the hotel of his father was at a distance of 30 to 35 yards. He expressed his inability to identify the other persons because he deposed that after acid had been thrown on his face he had lost his eyesight and, therefore, he was not in a position to depose as to who were the persons who chased the appellant. The witness was sure that it was the appellant who had thrown acid on his face from the front side and the acid came directly on his eyes and face. Regarding the first information report the witness admitted that the same was lodged on the. Following day in Civil Hospital, Jhelum. Similarly, the witness admitted that he did not know the residences of Muhammad Shabbir and Muhammad Suleman P. Ws., nor did he know where their houses were, but he admitted that these two witnesses had occasionally visited the hotel of his father for their meals and that he had no' relations with them. The witness deposed that he was familiar with them only on account of the fact that they visited his father's hotel. Then a question was put to the witness in the following words: "Can you explain that when you did not know the witnesses nor their residences, how did you mention their names, parentages and other particulars in the first information report? The reply was "My answer is the same, that is, as the witnesses used to visit my father's hotel, therefore, I was familiar with them to that extent and I mentioned their names". The witness denied the suggestion that at the time of lodging the first information report he was tutored by some one. He also denied that the entire incident was reported to the police by his father. He also denied that it was his father who had signed the first information report instead of the witness himself. He said that he did not remember whether it was moonlit night or whether there was any electric pole where he and the appellant were standing. In cross-examination he again repeated the motive for throwing acid on his face by the appellant. The suggestion that there were others who wanted to have illicit relations with him was :ategorically denied by him. It was suggested to Muhammad Zubair that Dne Qayyum son of Ch. Kamman wanted to have illicit relations with him on account of which there was enmity between him and Kamman family. This suggestion was flatly refuted by the witness. The rest of the cross examination mentioned the period during which the witness remained in the hospital. He properly gave the particulars of his stay in the hospital and said that he was not capable of even visiting toilet on his own. He denied, that he purposely tried to prolong his stay in the hospital so that the ease may take a serious turn.
The remaining cross-examination is not material but is mere repetition of some of the questions answered by this witness. He deposed that it was incorrect that he had named Arif on account of mere suspicion or that he was not in a position to identify the real culprit who had thrown acid on his face.
6. I would now discuss the evidence of Muhammad Shabbir and Muhammad Suleman P. Ws. In the light of the objection taken by the learned counsel that they were as a matter of fact chance witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied upon for maintaining the conviction of the appellant.
Muhammad Shabbir P. W. Deposed that on the day of occurrence he was going alongwith Muhammad Suleman P. W. And when they reached Chowk Dina they saw Muhammad Arif appellant and Muhammad Zubair standing at a distance of five to seven yards. He also noticed the appellant holding a blue coloured plastic glass in his hand and pouring something on the head of Muhammad Zubair. The appellant then threw the glass and at that time he was holding a bottle in his left hand. He with the help of Muhammad Zubair removed the clothes of Zubair by tearing them off who was at that time burning on account of acid. On account of general noise father of Zubair and others came to the spot. Muhammad Suleman P. W. Who had a dhoti with him covered the body of Zubair with it and he was then put on a cot and carried to the hotel by his father. The witness was sure that the matter which was thrown on Zubair was acid. He admitted that on the following day the police arrived at the spot and Qasim produced a glass of blue colour before the police. In cross-examination the witness was first asked about the location of his hoUse and then whether he remembered that it was moonlit night or not. The answer given by the witness was that he did not remember. He said that when he first saw the appellant and Zubair he was at a distance of 15 to 20 yards from the place where they were actually standing. At that time while talking they were facing each other and when acid was poured on the head of Zubair they were still facing each other. The actual direction of Zubair as described by him was that he was facing towards the South while Arif was facing North. Both of them were identified by him from a distance of 15 to 20 yards. He admitted that he could not see the full faces but only noticed their profiles. He also said that he knew Zubair for the last one year , as occasionally he used to visit the hotel of his father Fazal Haq to take his meals and tea, but said that he did not talk to Zubair. The witness also said that he knew that Zubair had passed his Matriculation Examination that year and his father intended to get him admitted in Rasul College. He expressed his inability to give the names of proprietors of other hotels which he had also been visiting in connection with his meals. It was deposed by the witness that he only noticed the blue glass in the hand of Arif when he actually poured its contents on the head of Zubair. The bottle was noticed by him while Arif was running away from the spot.
' Similarly so fanas the evidence of Muhammad Suleman is concerned I find that he fully corroborated the evidence of Muhammad Shabbir in all aspects. This witness in cross-examination stated that he picked up Muhammad Shabbir P. W. From the office and then both of them proceeded towards the mosque situated on Rotas road. He noticed the appellant and the complainant from a distance of 5 to 6 yards but could not hear what they were talking. The witness said that after two minutes he had seen Zubair and Arif talking together, then he saw Arif throwing some substance from the glass on the face of Zubair. He was sure that he had seen Arif appellant holding glass in his right hand and the bottle in his left when he was having a talk with Zubair. The witness even described the way and the manner and said that the appellant flung the acid on the face of Arif by giving a forward swing to his right arm. In the rest of the cross-examination the witness was questioned with regard to other shopkeepers, their relatives and other hotels where he used to take his meals. The witness admitted that he did not talk to the appellant but only knew him by face as his uncle was known to him. With regard to Muhammad Shabbir P. W. He said that both of them did not take their meals from the hotel of Fazal Haq. The suggestion that he had not seen the occurrence and was falsely deposing was denied by him.
7. Before dealing with the rest of the evidence that, is the recovery and the medical evidence, I would like to observe that so far as the evidence of Muhammad Shabbir and Muhammad Suleman P. Ws. Is concerned, nothing has been brought on record to show that they were either hostile to the appellant or were in any way inimical on account of any past incident. Similarly, I do not find any connection, either remote or otherWise, of these witnesses with the complainant or with his father Fazal Haq which could induce them to come forward and depose about the incident which they had not actually , seen. As a matter of fact, a minute examination of their evidence when compared with the evidence of Muhammad Zubair P. W. Leaves no room for doubt that they were actually present at the spot when the alleged incident took place. I have noticed that Muhammad Suleman P. W. In cross-examination admitted, that he could not hear the conversation going on between Zubair and Arif and it was just for about two minutes that both of them had talked when he noticed Arif throwing the contents of the glass on the face of Zubair. This evidence is quite natural and consistent with the evidence of Zubair who deposed that when he met the appellant he first of all insisted that he (Zubair) should submit to his demand of having illicit relations with him and when he refused all of a sudden the appellant threw acid on his face. I do not find anything to discredit the testimony of these two witnesses and I am, therefore, of the view that they were the persons who actually saw, the occurrence and hence the objection taken by the learned counsel that they were chance witnesses is of no substance. Although in my opinion the evidence of Muhammad Zubair, as corroborated by the evidence of Muhammad Shabbir and Muhammad Suleman P. Ws. Is sufficient to maintain the conviction of the appellant, yet, I find more evidence which lends further support to the prosecution case and that is the evidence of Dr. M. A. H. Siddiqui who examined the victim in this case, and found the following injuries on his person:- Eschara black staining seen on the following parts:
(1) Eschara black staining, practically whole of the left side of the neck and whole face. Front of the face including both eye-lids, nose, upper lip and cheeks. Eye-lids were swollen and eyes could not be opened. Eyes were also injured.
(2) Black staining.-Practically -whole back, front of left shoulder, ' front of abdomen and the middle line for 3' to 4' wide.
(3) Practically whole of the left upper extremity.
(4) Lower half of inner side of the left thigh.
(5) e x 2" on the right thigh lower and outer part.
(6) Practically whole of the right upper extremity.
' In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were caused by corrosive solution. He referred the case of Muhammad Zubair to Mayo Hospital for further medical examination and treatment. The same doctor again examined Muhammad Zubair in Court and found the following:-
(1) Vision of both eyes lost practically.
(2) Left Pinna lost.
(3) Nose, left face and left neck deformed due to after-effects of acid burns and contracture.
(4) There was a contracture going from the left neck to the left angle of the mouth.
(5) Left lip on the lower side was contracted downward.
' Doctor Muhammad Akram Sheikh, formerly Chemical Examiner, Government of West Pakistan at Lahore was examined as P. W. 2 who examined glass, clothes and the bottle. The result of his examination revealed that concentrated acid sulfuric was detected in all the parcels which he examined which contained glass, clothes and bottle. The clothes 'had been charred with acid sulfuric. In cross-examination the doctor stated that acid sulfuric concentrated would necessarily had a corrosive effect on plastic, depending upon the constitution of the plastic. He also deposed that it was not essential that acid sulfuric concentrated should leave any marks of stains on any plastic container. The doctor frankly admitted that he was not sure whether bottle (P. 1) shown to him and the contents of the bottle were the same which he examined in his laboratory and regarding which he sent his report. Exh. C 1) because thousand of exhibits were received in the laboratory and after analysis they were returned in their sealed condition bearing the seal of the laboratory. He deposed that if the exhibit was opened in the Court in a sealed condition bearing the official seal of the Chemical Examiner then it would be presumed that it was the same exhibit which had been tested in his laboratory. The doctor made it quite clear that on account of passage of time and absorption of moisture and faulty storage the contents of bottle P. 1 were liable to have undergone change. It is thus obvious that the evidence of Dr. M. A. H. Siddiqui and that of the Chemical Examiner conclusively proves that the unfortunate victim in this case lost both his eyes on account of acid thrown on his face.
8. Dealing with the question of delay I find that Fazal Haq P. W. Father of Muhammad Zubair deposed that when he came to the spot he found Muhammad Shabbir and Muhammad Suleman holding his son and they were at that time removing his clothes. Smoke was coming out of the clothes. Fazal Haq took his son to Civil Hospital, Jhelum in a taxi. Thus it is quite evident that immediately after the occurrence Muhammad Zubair was removed to the hospital at Jhelum where he was provided medical aid. So naturally it would have taken some time for lodging the report, because the first and foremost anxiety of the father was to provide medical aid to his injured son rather than to report the matter to the police. I have not come across anything on record which could indicate or suggest that delay in the instant case was either intentional or was on account of any negligence on the part of the complainant nor that the same has been used by the prosecution in order to fill any loophole in the prosecution case. The delay, therefore, is not fatal to the prosecution case.
9. This leaves me with the question of recovery of bottle (P. 1) and glass (P. 5). Lehrasab Khan (P. W.
4) and Kafait Ali (P. W. 5) testified the recovery of bottle. The recovery' of glass (P. 5) was attested by Muhammad Suleman P. W. And Muhammad Qasim who was given up by the prosecution as having been won-over. Having already believed Muhammad Suleman with regard to the ocular evidence I do not see any reason to disbelieve his testimony with regard to the recovery of glass as well.
' Muhammad Arif was arrested on the 25th of August 1968, and while in police custody he led to the recovery of bottle P. 1, which contained acid vide recovery memo. Exh. P. C. Lehrasab Khan P. W.
Stated that he had gone to the shop of Kafait All P. W. For the recovery of price of a pair of shoes which he had sold 20 to 25 days earlier and when he arrived at his shop the police party was already there sitting outside a hotel. The witness was present at Dina Chowk when the appellant was pr9duced by his uncle and the recovery of bottle was then effected from a place at a distance of 30 to 40 karams from Dina Chowk. Similarly, Kafait Ali P. W. Supported the recovery of bottle (P. 1).
He admitted that he had been buying shoes on credit from Lehrasab Khan P. W. And that he had bought shoes on credit from him six months prior to the date of recovery. The total price, however, which was to be paid by him he did not remember, but deposed that the amount was paid by him after about 1 months of the purchase. Ledger has been opened in his name by Lehrasab Khan P. W.
Lehrasab Khan was recalled alongwith his account books and when cross examined he admitted that his account book was a composite one containing the roznamcha and the ledger. According to the witness there was an entry dated 21-3-68 to the effect that two sandals and one pump shoe had been sold to Kafait P. W. For Rs, 25/8. This amount had been duly realized from Kafait on 24th April 1968. The suggestion that some entries have been made in the book after Lehrasab Khan had been examined by the trial Court was denied by the witness. Similarly, the witness denied that the words "Kafait Khookhawala" had been added later after his statement had been recorded by the learned trial Magistrate.
' Learned counsel argued that with regard the question of payment of price of the shoes by Kafait Ali there is a patent contradiction in the evidence of the two recovery witnesses and therefore their evidence is not to be relied upon. I am not very much impressed by this, the reason being that assuming that there is some contradiction that would not make much difference, because so far as the presence of these witnesses at the time of recovery is concerned that has been duly established. Even if the evidence of recovery is to be ignored even then there is overwhelming evidence, as discussed above to prove the prosecution case.
10. This leaves me with the last contention of the learned counsel on which great emphasis was laid that Qasim although initially a prosecution witness yet examined by the defence as D. W. 1 continued to be a prosecution witness and, therefore, his evidence must be taken as part and C parcel of the prosecution case. In support of this contention learned counsel cited Jahana and others v. Emperor (1). In this judgment my attention was drawn to the following observations at page 240: "Two trackers, Naman and Ganda, have been examined as witnesses in connection with this part of the case, Naman for the prosecution and Ganda for the defence. I may note in passing that Ganda was originally mentioned in the challan as a prosecution witness, but for some reason he was not produced by the prosecution, and was examined by the accused as their witness. He must, therefore, be regarded for practical purposes as a witness for the prosecution". The other authority cited by the learned counsel is Akhtar All v. The Crown (1). In this case one Kemal Din was examined by the prosecution and he was cross-examined before and after the .Charge and was called as a witness by the accused. A copy of his statement to the police was applied for but the same was refused on the ground that the copy of a witness's statement to the police can be given to the accused only when the witness was called for the prosecution. Reliance was placed by the trial Court on AIR 1936 Born. 154, where it was held that when a witness is called by the defence or by the Court his statement to the police cannot be used either by the prosecution or by the defence. It was held by the learned Judge "In my opinion, the learned trial Magistrate has been misled by this judgment. In that case the witness whose statement was applied for had not been called by the prosecution at all. In this case Kama' Din was examined by the prosecution and he did not cease to be a witness for the prosecution when he was called for further examination in defence any more than when he was called by the accused for further cross-examination after the charge. Section 256, Cr. P. C. Enables the accused to recall prosecution witnesses for further cross- examination and section 257, Cr. P. C., enables the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, to Call upon the Magistrate to issue process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination".
So far as Jehana and others v. Imperor is concerned I find from the observations of the learned Judge that in that cave no specific reason was given as to why Ganda was not examined as a prosecution witness. The case, therefore, is distinguishable from the present one where the prosecution gave specific reason for not examining Muhammad Qasim as its own witness because he had been won over. With regard to Akhtar Ali v. The Crown, I am in respectful agreement, with the principle laid down by the learned Judge, but I am afraid the same is not applicable to the present case, because the position in the instant case is quite different. Prosecution has complete control over his witnesses and if at any stage any doubt or suspicion arises that a particular witness was not going to depose the truth either having been won over or on account of some other pressure then there is no legal bar for the prosecution to give up such a witness. If such D a witness is later on examined by the defence then be can neither be treated as a prosecution' witness nor his testimony would amount to a different version of the prosecution case. Such a witness then would be treated as a defence witness and his evidence would be subjected to the test of credibility and would also have to be compared. With the rest of the evidence on. The record.
' What actually happened in this case is that on the 4th of February 1969, the prosecuting Sub- Inspector made a statement in which he gave Muhammad Qasim as having been won over by the defence and it was after this that he was examined by the defence in support of its version. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1954 Lah. 21 {{FOOT NOTE}} In my view, therefore, the evidence of Muhammad Qasim would be that on a defence witness and cannot be treated to be a different version of th prosecution case as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.
11. The appellant when examined by the trial Court denied the allegation. When asked as to why he had been involved in the present case, his, reply was:- "Zubair's character was not above reproach. He had enmity with other boys. The occurrence took place in total darkness and the assailant or assailants were not identified. I was falsely implicated on account of suspicion."
' The appellant examined Sakhi Muhammad (D. W. 2) in addition to Muhammad Qasim.
Muhammad Qasim deposed that he came out of his house of Isha prayers and was going towards mosque when he heard alarm raised by a boy and went to that direction. He found that the alarm had been raised by Zubair P. W. On enquiry he was told that some one had thrown something on him, and that he was not able to identify that Jerson. According to Muhammad Qasim, Sakhi Muhammad, Allah Ditta and Nazir were already present at the spot. Glass (P. 5) was lying at the spot which the witness picked up and later produced before the police vide memo. Exh. P. A. Which was duly attested by him. In cross-examination he admitted that Sakhi Muhammad was a brother of his wife and that he and Sakhi Muhammad alongwith some others were prosecuted under section 307, P. P. C. In the year 1957. Sakhi Muhammad stated that on the day of occurrence he was going to offer Isha prayers in a mosque adjacent to his shop when he alongwith Muhammad Qasim and one Nazir rushed to wards tite Chowk because they heard some noise from that direction. They enquired from Zubair as to what had happened and were told that some one had thrown something on him and had run away. The witness was told by Zubair that the person who had. Thrown something on him could not be identified.
12. I have already held that the two eye-witnesses Muhammad Shabbir and Muhammad Suleman are the persons who had actually seen the occurrence. They in their evidence have clearly stated to have correctly identified the appellant. I, therefore, do not find any reason to hold that the real culprit who had done this heinous act was not correctly and properly identified. I, therefore, do not believe the evidence of Muhammad Qasim and Sakhi Muhammad D. Ws. The result is that I in my view the prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt. 1, therefore, uphold the conviction of the appellant under section 307, P. P. C. And dismiss his appeal.
13. This leaves me with the question of sentence. This Court by its order dated the 18th January 1971, issued notice to the appellant to show cause as to why the sentence awarded to him be not enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellant cited number of authorities, the most important are Muhammad Sharif v. The State (1), Zarif Khan v. The State (2.), Pahlwan and another v. The State (3) and argued that this Court would not normally interferes in the quantum of sentence if it is found that it was not grossly inadequate. Learned counsel al so drew my attention to the date of incident {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1969 SCM R 521 (2) 1968 P Cr. L J 1818
(3) PLD 1966 Kar. 156 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' which took place on 20th August 1968, and submitted that since then the appellant had been behind the bars. This fact according to the learned counsel also deserved to be taken into consideration while determining the quantum of sentence. There is no doubt that this Court very rarely interferes with the sentence, but I am afraid in this case the question of sentence is to be considered in the light of the circumstances of this case and so far as the other submission that the appellant had been in the lock-up since the day of occurrence is concerned that is not of much help because in Samano v. The State (1), it was observed that the mere length of time taken in concluding the trial and deciding the appeal would not by itself constitutes an extenuating circumstance justifying imposition of lesser penalty. In the instant case, the unfortunate young boy who lost both his eyes was on the threshold of his educational career. His entire future stands completely ruined and he had been rendered cripple for rest of his life. For a heinous offence like this, a very deterrent and severe sentence is required so that innocent and law abiding citizens are provided some guarantee of their personal safety. I would, therefore, enhance the sentence of the appellant to a period of ten years rigorous imprisonment. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1973 SCMR 162 {{FOOT NOTE}}