' This criminal revision assails the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur dated 30-4-1984, whereby the petitioners' conviction and sentence under section 325/34, P.P.C. to undergo 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs, 1,000 each, in default whereof to suffer further R.I. for 6 months each awarded by the Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate Ist Class, Hasilpur vide his judgment dated 21-1-1984 was upheld. The fine if realized, was ordered to be paid to the injured P.Ws. Allah Rakha, Raj Bibi and Muhammad Nawaz.
2. The petitioners were challaned by the police of Police Station Hasilpur under section 325/34, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No, 169/82 recorded on the basis of report Exh.PA lodged by P.W.1 Allah Rakha on 30- 5-1982. P.W.6 Muhammad Din, S.I. had recorded the F.I.R. Exh. PA/1. P.W.I alleged that he alongwith his son P.W.3 Muhammad Nawaz was busy in carrying Roori (manure) to his fields. Ghulam Qadir petitioner armed with a stick reached the spot and asked the complainant to desist from carrying the manure. On the refusal of P.W.1, petitioner Ghulam Qadir abused him and attacked him with his Soti. P.W.3 Muhammad Nawaz son of the complainant and Mst. Raj Bibi wife of P.W.1 reached the spot to rescue P.W.1. Meanwhile petitioners Khuda Bakhsh, Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Hussain armed with hatchet and sticks reached the spot, joined Ghulam Qadir petitioner and inflicted injuries to P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. P.Ws. Muhammad Bakhsh, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Ramzan (not produced) were attracted to the spot who saved P.Ws.1 to 3 from the petitioners. The motive for the offence was that the petitioners wanted that P.W.1 should leave the place under dispute.
3. After completion of the investigation the petitioners/accused were challaned and sent up for trial. A charge under section 325/34, P.P.C. was framed against them, to which they denied and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined six prosecution witnesses in all to substantiate its case. Mr. Ata Muhammad Zaffar, Magistrate 1st Class on 1-1-1983 convicted and sentenced the petitioners under section 325/34, P.P.C. to undergo 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs, 500 in default whereof to suffer R.I. for 6 months. The petitioners filed a criminal appeal and the case was remanded by Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Goreja, Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur on 1-2-1983 with a direction to re-record the statements of the petitioners under section 342, Cr.P.C. and then to write the judgment.
5. On 21-1-1984 the petitioners were convicted and sentenced by Mr. Akbar All Bhullar, Magistrate Ist Class, Hasilpur and convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para. 1 above. The petitioners filed their criminal appeal which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur.
6. P.W.1 Allah Rakha, P.W.2 Mst. Raj Bibi, P.W.3 Muhammad Nawaz, eye-witnesses were injured during the occurrence at the hands of the petitioners. P.W.1 had supported the contents of Ruppet Exh.PA, on the basis of which formal F.I.R Exh.PA/1 was recorded. P.W.2 and P.W.3, wife and son of the complainant (P.W.1) respectively also corroborated the statement of P.W.1 and they were injured during occurrence. They have also corroborated each other and made consistent statements.
P.W.4 Allah Rakha also supported the ocular account furnished by the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. He had witnessed the recovery of hatchet and Solis at the instance of Khuda Bakhsh, Muhammad Arif, Muhammad Hussain and Ghulam Qadir petitioners on 16-6-1982 vide memos.
Exhs.PD, PB, PC and PE respectively, but as the abovesaid weapons were neither produced in the Court, nor those were blood stained in the circumstances, the same have no corroborative value.
P.W.5 Dr. Mukhtar Nasim had medically examined Mst. Raj Bibi (P.W.2) and had found 5 injuries on her person caused with blunt weapon and had declared injury No,3 as grievous. P.W.5 also medically examined P.W.3 Muhammad Nawaz and found 5 injuries on his person caused with blunt weapon, all simple. The same Doctor had medically examined P.W.1 and had found 6 injuries on his person. Injury No,4 was declared as grievous. P.W.6 Muhammad Din is the Investigating Officer, who had recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.PA/1 on the basis of Ruppet Exh.PA. After completion of the investigation, he had challaned the petitioners.
7. The petitioners when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence against them and had stated that the P.Ws. had falsely deposed against them due to enmity and produced D.W.1 Ghulam Hussain and D.W.2 Bahar Shah, who had stated that no such occurrence had ever taken place. They also produced Exh.DA (stay order) and closed their defence.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State and have perused the record. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are closely related inter se, i.e. P.W.1 is husband of P.W.2 and father of P.W.3 and they were injured during the occurrence. They made consistent statements and corroborated each other. P.W.4 Allah Rakha son of Karam, another eye- witness also corroborated the statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. The statements made by P.Ws. 1 to 4 are in consonance with the statement of P.W.5 Dr. Mukhtar Nasim. No doubt the recovery of incriminating weapons of offence at the instance of the petitioners have no evidentiary value as those were neither produced in the Court nor were stained with blood, P.Ws.1 to 3 were injured during the occurrence. Injuries found on their person by P.W.5 prove and establish their presence at the spot during the occurrence.
9. The prosecution had established and proved its case beyond doubt against the petitioners for causing injuries to P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. Neither the Radiologist was produced in the Court to prove X- rays nor his report was exhibited in the Court. In the circumstances I am of the view that the petitioners had committed an offence under section 323/34, P.P.C. as no injuries with sharp-edged weapon was found on the person of P.Ws. 1 to 3 by P.W.S. Accordingly, I alter the conviction and sentence of the petitioners from sections 325/34 to 323/34, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence and states that the petitioners are facing the agonies of long protracted trial since 1982. The petitioners remained in jail as undertrials and convicts for a period of about three months. I am of the considered view that the period already undergone by the petitioners as undertrials and convicts shall meet the ends of justice. .
The sentence of fine of Rs, 1,000 each is, however, maintained, in default of payment whereof the petitioners shall suffer R.I. for one month each. The fine, if realized, half of it shall be paid to P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 in equal shares as compensation. The petitioners shall deposit the amount of fine within seven days in the trial Court. The petitioners are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.