' Appellant Ramzan aged 55 years was tried by Magistrate Section 30, Okara, under section 307/326/324/452, P.P.C. Vide his judgment dated 27-8-1990, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the abovesaid offences and proceeded to award him the following sentences:-- Under section 307, P.P.C, 7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default 9 months' S.I.
Under section 326. P.P.C, 7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default thereof 9 months' S.I.
Under section 324, P.P.C. 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default of payment 3 months' S.I.
Under section 452. P.P.C, 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.4,000, in default whereof to suffer 6 months' S.I.
' All the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred an appeal before this Court which is being disposed by this order.
2. Brief facts of the case as contained in the F.I.R. (Exh.PA./1) lodged by Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Siddique (P.W.1) are that he earns his livelihood through plying tonga and was living with his family in Bhianwala Karkhana, Okara. Muhammad Ramzan appellant who was his relative got a loan of Rs.100 from him about 5/6 days prior to the occurrence which was promised to be returned within a few days. The said appellant visited his house on 17-10-1989 when the complainant demanded back the loan from him whereupon exchange of hot words took place between them. On 18-10-1989 at about 3-30 a.m. the appellant criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant armed with a Toka and launched an attack by shouting that he would teach a lesson for demanding back his money. It was further stated by the complainant that Ramzan gave 5 injuries on his head and other parts of his body. He also inflicted injuries on the person of Mst.
Rafiqa Bibi (P.W.2), Muhammad Shafiq (P.W.3), Muhammad Farooq (P.W.4), Mst. Sakina Bibi (P.W.5) and Mst. Zarina (P.W.6). on various parts of their bodies, including head. Muhammad Rafiq (P.W.1) was taken into the hospital, where his statement (Exh.P.A.) was recorded by Taj Muhammad, Inspector (P.W.9), on the basis of which formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.A./1) was registered at Police Station B- Division, Okara. The appellant was arrested, recovery of the weapon of offence was effected and after completion of investigation, he was challaned to Court where he faced trial, which resulted in his conviction and sentence as mentioned above.
3. The prosecution has produced as many as 10 P.Ws. in support of its case. Muhammad Rafiq P.W.1 had corroborated his statement Exh.P.A. He deposed about the details of the occurrence as contained in the F.I.R. as reproduced above and fully supported the prosecution case. His statement was further corroborated by Mst. Rafiqan Bibi (P.W.2), Muhammad Shafiq (P.W.3), Muhammad Farooq (P.W.4), Mst. Sakina Bibi (P.W.5) and Mst. Zarina (P.W.6). Dr. Muhammad Ashraf Javed, Medical Officer (P.W.7), examined the injured P.Ws. He found four injuries on the person of Mst. Rafiqan Bibi (P.W.2), all were found to be caused with a sharp-edged weapon within the duration of three hours. Injury No.2 was found grievous after X-ray examination, while the rest of the injuries were simple in nature. On the same day, i.e. 18-10-1989, he examined Farooq injured (P.W.3) and found 13 injuries on his person. All the injuries were found to have been caused with sharp- edged weapon within the duration of three hours. Injury No.7 was found grievous. Remaining injuries were kept under observation, which, later on, were found simple except injuries Nos.4 and 5 which were grievous in nature. On the same day, this witness also examined Mst. Zarina (P.W.6) and found 4 injuries on her person. All the injuries were found to be caused by sharp-edged weapon within the duration of three hours. Injury No.1 was found grievous, while the others were found simple in nature. On the same day, he also. examined Muhammad Shafiq injured P.W.3 and found 4 injuries on his person, caused with sharp-edged weapon within the duration of three hours. Injury No.2 was found grievous, while rest were found simple in nature. On the same day, the doctor examined Sohail injured and found 3 injuries on his person, caused by sharp-edged weapon within the duration of three hours. Injury No.1 was found grievous while the rest of the injuries were simple in nature. On the same day, he examined Muhanitnad Rafiq injured P.W.1 and found 7 injuries on his person, caused by sharp-edged weapon within the duration of three hours. Injuries Nos.2 and 7 were declared grievous. while the remaining injuries were simple in nature. He also examined Mst.
Sakina Bibi (P.W.5) and found 8 injuries on her person, caused by sharp-edged weapon within the duration of 3 hours, of which injury No.3 was found grievous, while the others were simple in nature.
4. Taj Muhammad Inspector, the Investigating Officer, appeared as P.W.9 and gave the details of investigation conducted by him. Rest of the evidence being formal need not be discussed.
5. In his statement under section 342 of the Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the allegations against him. He, however, did not appear under section 340(2) of the Cr.P.C. in. disproof of the charge against. He also did not produce any witness in defence.
6. Argument's heard. Record perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has, at the very outset, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case through injured witnesses whose statements are duly corroborated by medical evidence, so he does hot challenge the conviction of the appellant on merits of the case. He, however, submits that there is legal infirmity in the impugned judgment in the form of awarding consecutive sentences to the appellant, which, according to him, were unwarranted and not in accordance with the provisions of sections 34, 35 of Criminal Procedure Code and section 71, P.P.C.
He contends that the trial Court was not empowered to pass the sentence, exceeding 14 years, as such the order impugned suffers from legal infirmity, as according to him, the sentences passed against the appellant should have been concurrent and not consecutive. To substantiate his submissions, he has placed reliance on Javed Sheikh v. The State 1985 SCM R 153, Hafizuddin and 2 others v. The State and others 1969 PCr.LJ 610 and Bashir and another v. The State 1986 SCM R 2014.
8. In the abovesaid precedent cases, this principle of law was elaborated and it was observed that in similar circumstances, the sentences should have been passed to run 'concurrently and not consecutively. Learned State counsel does not controvert this proposition of law, rather has conceded on the point that the sentences passed against the appellant should have been ordered to run concurrently. He submits that the conviction of the appellant be maintained as he had caused injuries mercilessly to the whole family consistin of the complainant, his wife and children.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the State and have gone through the precedents cited by the learned counsel for the appellant.
10. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the abovesaid precedents, I maintain the conviction of the appellant and order his sentences to run concurrently.
11. I have noted that the learned trial Court has not awarded the compensation under section 544- A of the Cr.P.C. which is a mandatory provision of law. I, therefore, direct that the fine if realised, half of the same shall be paid to the injured P.Ws., as compensation.
' This appeal stands disposed of as being partly allowed.