' Malik Sher Muhammad A.C./S.D.M., Daska, on 27-1-1987, convicted Muhammad Shafi and Khurshid and sentenced them each to two years' R.I., for an offence under section 326, P.P.C., and one year R.I. for an offence under section 325, P.P.C., besides a fine of Rs,1,000, or to R.I. for 6 months more in the event of default in payment of fine, and further ordered that both the sentences would run consecutively. Ghulam Haider accused was given benefit of doubt and acquitted. The convicts unsuccessfully approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, Rai Muhammad Zafar Bhatti, who dismissed their appeal on 16-2-1987, with the modification that the sentences aforesaid would run concurrently. The present revision petition was preferred in this Court on 22-3-1987, and they were admitted to bail on 17-5-1987. Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate has addressed the Court as counsel for the petitioners, whereas none has appeared to represent the State or the complainant.
2. On the statement of Nawab Din this case under section 326/34, P.P.C. had been registered at 10- 10 p.m. on 1-2-1983 at P.S. Sambrial, District Sialkot, the alleged incident having taken place in the early hours. There was some civil litigation going on between the parties and civil suit of Muhammad Shall etc. was dismissed on 30-1-1983, which development offended the accused, who launched an assault on Nawab Din complainant on 1-2-1983 morning, when he was serving his cattle with fodder at the cattleshed. Muhammad Shall was armed with a hatchet and Khurshid was carrying a 'sot' while Ghulam Haider was empty-handed. Ghulam Haider gave grip to Nawab Din, on whose person Muhammad Shafi and Khurshid landed multiple blows. He raised alarm, which attracted to the spot, Lal Khan, Abdul Rehman and Muhammad Anwar, who witnessed the occurrence.
3. In the opinion of the learned two Courts below, the case had been registered with no unreasonable delay and the P.Ws. had furnished a consistent testimony, connecting the accused with the commission of the crime. Recovery of the crime weapons, hatchet and `dand' made respectively on 15 2-1983 and 3-3-1983, at the instance of Muhammad Shafi and Khurshid, has not been given any importance, since the same were not stained with blood and the recoveries had been effected long after the alleged incident.
4. Muhammad Anwar P.W.4 is son of the complainant, but the other two eye-witnesses, Lal Khan P.W.3 and Abdul Rehman P.W.2 have been treated as trustworthy persons and not as 'interested' or 'chance' witnesses by the appellate Court below. Even Muhammad Anwar has been characterised as natural witness. It has been observed that there was no background of enmity, having prompted the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons.
5. In this context it may be pointed out that so far as Ghulam Haider accused is concerned, P.Ws. have been disbelieved as regards his participation in the occurrence. Even if he was empty- handed and had given japha' to Nawab Din complainant, as is alleged, he had obviously played an active role, inasmuch as he had made the victim helpless, by taking the initiative, and it could not be said that the part played by him was not material and if it is assumed that the P.Ws. had tried to involve him without his being present on the occasion, or having participated in the occurrence, the veracity of the P.Ws. will certainly be rendered doubtful, by reason of their antagonistic attitude towards an innocent person, whom they tried to have punished for a crime which he had not committed. I am, however, conscious of application of rule of divisibility of veracity of witnesses to cases in the domain of criminal justice. Correct approach in the case for the learned Courts below was to have extended benefit of doubt to Ghulam Haider as a measure of abundant caution, and not by entirely disbelieving the P.Ws. in regard to his role in the incident, the reason being that he was unarmed, and one could not be sure about his participation.
6. Police padding in the case was certainly there, as the agency endeavoured to plant on the appellants the weapons, which according to the F.I.R., they were armed with, at the relevant time.
Several weeks afterwards the recoveries were claimed to have been made on the disclosure and pointation made by the petitioners (accused), and thus a clumsy as also a dishonest effort was made to strengthen the prosecution case or to provide a corroborative piece of evidence, which had no existence in actual practice. Hatchets and `sotas' are so commonly available, and one each was picked up from somewhere by the police and planted on the accused. This was by no way an honest exercise undertaken by the investigating agency to connect the accused with the commission of the crime alleged against them.
7. If there was no motive available with the complainant to have untruthfully involved the accused persons in the alleged incident, it is not understandable as to what then was the motive for the assault allegedly launched by the accused on the complainant, as was reported in the F.I.R. The accused after all were not mad people, who had acted in that furious and criminal manner, without any cause of grouse having been offered by the complainant and without there being any background of past enmity or bitterness between the parties. True, tempers may rise high, entailing an offensive when the adversaries get embittered by some cause of offence triggered by any side, at the spur of the moment; but people do not resort to such an incident of violence just as a hobby or a pastime and the Court has to look for and find out the actual cause of offence or bitterness. It appears, there was nothing of the kind in existence in the present case, if the reasoning given by the learned two Courts below is adopted or endorsed. The one obliquely hinted at by the learned trial Magistrate, by believing the F.I.R. narrative, does not appear to be adequate for the assault and directly relatable to the incident. If the accused had failed in the civil suit, it was open to him to have gone in appeal to the higher Court, and apparently there was no reason why they should have taken the law into their own hands.
8. The defence version, I agree, was equally unacceptable or unplausible. A bullock could not possibly inflict on the victim several injuries of varying nature, as were suffered by Nawab Din complainant. One of the injuries, which was more serious and grievous, had been caused with a sharp-edged weapon, and an infuriated action of an animal could not possibly entail such an injury, even if a horn had struck against the head with full venom. The defence plea thus seems to have rightly been discarded by the Courts below.
9. The incident appears to have occurred on a sudden flare-up, without any pre-planning, and with no real motive. Only one injury was described as grievous, and all others were in the nature of bruises and lacerations, including a swelling. Injuries Nos.1 and 3, described as grievous, seemed to have no independent entity, as both form part of fracture of left forearm and the same might have been caused by a formidable blow inflicted with a hatchet, which Muhammad Shafi accused allegedly was armed with. It appears that the State as also the complainant have lost interest, as nobody has appeared to plead their cause in this Court. Muhammad Shafi and Khurshid accused were arrested 20 days and 30 days after the incident and they were allowed bail by the lower Court two days and seven days after their arrest. The learned Additional Sessions Judge admitted them to bail on 8-2-1987, 12/13 days after their conviction by the learned trial Magistrate, recorded on 27- 1-1987. This Court allowed them bail on 17-5-1987, the learned. Additional Sessions Judge having upheld the conviction and sentence vide judgment announced on 16-2-1987. It thus seems that they have sufficiently suffered, especially if it is borne in mind that they have faced the agony of a protracted trial over a duration of four years in the trial Court, and although the learned Additional Sessions Judge hastened to decide the appeal, the present revision petition has been pending in the High Court over a period of about 5-1/2 years. I think, it would meet the ends of justice, and it would also retrieve the injured person, complainant in the case, if the conviction is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone. The amount of fine, if deposited, would be paid to the complainant; if however the convicts have defaulted in payment of fine, the sentence they were ordered to undergo in lieu thereof shall be considered to have merged in the term of sentence, which the convicts have already served.
Sentence reduced.