' The three petitioners, namely Ghauns Khan, Fazil Khan and Abbas Khan, and their co-accused Yaqub Khan were convicted and sentenced under section 307)34, P. P. C., by Magistrate Section 30, Shakargarh. Ghauns was awarded R. I. For 4 years and a fine of Rs, 200, Fazil R. I. For 3 years and a fine of Rs, 100, Abbas R. I. For 2i years and a fine of Re. 100 and co-accused Yaqub R. I. For 2 years. In the appeal which they preferred, Yaqub was acquitted but the conviction of the petitioners was maintained though their substantive sentences were reduced to R. I. For 2 years in each case, while the sentences of fine were maintained. Hence this revision petition.
2. The petitioners and the acquitted co-accused are related inter se. Ghauns, Fazil and Yaqub are real brothers, while Abbas is the son of Ghauns. The case against them was upon the allegation that on 12-5-1965, at evening time, Ghauns and Fazil were taking their cattle through the vegitable field of Ashraf P. W. To wnich the latter objected but Ghauns insisted on taking the cattle through the field and shouted to his relations, who had their houses in the vicinity, to come to his help.
Abbas and Yaqub, thereupon, came with four spears. The four accused persons, thus having armed themselves with a spear each, attacked Ashraf. Ghauns inflicted a piercing injury on the bridge of the nose of Ashraf. Fazil gave a barehhi blow on the chest 2" from the left nipple, and Abbas gave a third blow on the right hand of Ashraf. As the injured fell down unaer the blows, Yaqub gave kicks to him. The occurrence was seen by Anwar Khan brother of Ashraf, Hanif, Nazir, Ishaq and Yunas. The injured was promptly removed to the Civil Dispensary, Kot Nathan. Where he was examined medically at 1-25 a.m. On 13-5-1965. The F. I. R. Was lodged at 6-15 a. m. In the morning.
3. The prosecution case was supported by eye-witnesses Anwar Khan (P. W. 2), Ashraf Khan the injured (P. W. 3), Banff (P. W. 4) and Nazir Khan (P. W. 5). The factum of injuries was supported by the evidence of Dr. Abaidur Rehman (P. W. 1). The occurrence was not denied but the defence case was that only Fazil had been involved in it. The version given by Fazil was : "In fact, P. Ws. Had attacked myself when I had gone to the house of Muhammad Khan father of Ashraf Khan, to tell him that his mare has destroyed my crop and he should keep his bullocks tied on which Muhammad Khan asked his son Ashraf to attack me who along with seven other persons injured myself. No other accused was present."
' The other accused persons took a similar stand. The defence examined as many as seven witnesses, one of them, that is, Dr. Muhammad Tahir (D. W. 4) the then Medical Officer, Shakargarh, testified that upon his examination of Fazil on 13-5-1965, at 8 a.m. He had found 7 simple injuries on his person, of which injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 7 had been incised ones. The defence version, however, did not prevail with the lower Courts.
4. The contentions raised before me in revision were nearly the same as raised during the trial and the appeal. The main contention was that the ocular witnesses being inimically disposed towards the petitioners and there being no corroboration to their testimony, the conviction of the petitioners upon their evidence was not justified. Anwar Khan complainant (P. W. 2) had admitted : "For the last 18 years, the accused had been fighting with us on land dispute."
' He, thus, admitted enmity with the petitioners and even stated : "Due to this enmity the accused attacked and injured him (Ashraf P. W.)."
' About Hanif (P. W. 4), it was pointed out that in the result of a litigation, a decree had been passed against him at the instance of Yaqub Khan co-accused, by the Union Council. Hanif had denied the decree but a copy of it was produced as Exh. PF. A similar decree had been passed against Nazir Khan (P. W. 5) by the Union Council at the instance of Ghauns Khan petitioner. This, too, had been denied by Nazir Khan but a copy of the decree in question was produced as Exh. DE. The witness, however, admitted that his brother Bashir had appeared as a P. W., on behalf of Amjad (brother of Anwar Khan complainant) against Ghauns Khan petitioner in a case under section 452/392, P. P. C.
He further admitted that Haque Nawaz son of Ghazi had appeared as P. W. Against him, Asharf Khan P. W. And others in a case under section 326, P. P. C. He, however, denied that Haque Nawaz was a brother of Ghauns Khan. Haque Nawaz who was produced as D. W. 1 testified that Ghauns Khan was the son of his mother's sister. From all this it was urged that all the eye-witnesses were interested ones and could not be relied upon unless sufficiently corroborated, which corroboration was not available. Enmity provides a double-edged motive both to the complainant and the accused party. It is enmity that prompts the accused, in most cases, to attack their victim- However the Court as a matter of caution look for corroboration to the testimony of witnesses who are proved to be on inimical terms with the accused. Nevertheless, there is no such inflexible rule and a conviction can be based even upon the testimony of a hostile witness depending upon the circumstance of each case and the quality of the evidence. Vide Shoni v. Bahadri etc. (I) and Nazir Hussain v. Muhammad Shafi etc. (2) Ashraf Khan, the injured in the case, is supported by his brother Anwar Khan. Admittedly there had been enmity between them and the accused party for a long period. They are, however, supported by Hanif and Nazir Khan, I do not agree that the material on record shows such deep-seated enmity between Hand and Nazir and the petitioners as would render their testimony unreliable in the absence of corroboration. They are not related to the injured. They are natural witnesses. Hanif had his house 70/80 yds. Away from the place of occurrence. Nazir Khan bad seen the occurrence when he was coming to the village. The medical account also fully supports the ocular testimony. They can, therefore, be believed.
5. The delay in lodging the F. I. R., was again brought up as had been done in the lower Courts. 1 find that the delay has been explained and as such is of no consequence.
6. It is contended that the presence of only 3 injuries was found to dispel the allegation that the attack had been made by four assailants each armed with a spear. The contention proceeds from an assumption that each assailant should have inflicted more than one injury. No such assun3ptioa can necessarily arise. The injuries have been duly accounted for by the eyewitnesses.
The injuries are also compatible with the weapons used by the petitioners. The chest injury has been shown to be a punctured wound.
7. Learned counsel next urged that injury No, 1 had wrongly been held to be grievous. The reason for declaring that injury as grievous, in the words of the Medical Officer (P. W. 1) is : "1 declared injury No, 1 to be grievous because the nasal bone had been {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) P L P 1965 SC 111 (2) P l D 1965 SC 18 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' cut. I agree that I did not declare it serious due to any facial deformity. Nor any facial deformity had been caused."
' The contention is not without force for the Medical Officer has not given sufficient justification for treating the injury as grievous. It was held in Asnsat Ullah v. State (1) : "Unless a bone is cut through and through, a mere cut in the bone would not make the injury as grievous. It is the fracture or the dislocation of a bone which fall in the definition of a grievous hurt."
' But even if the injury was not grievous, that would not alter the offence, which would remain under section 307, P. P. C. Because the blows directed at the head and chest region are such that if the victim had died thereof, the petitioners would have been liable to murder.
8. Learned counsel also urged that the witnesses could not be believed for the reason that they had suppressed the injuries found on the person of Fazil Khan. The contention has little force because, in the first instance, it has not been duly established that Fazil Khan had received the injuries at the hands of his victim. His own witness Dr. Muhammad Tahir (P. W. 4) admitted that the incised injury on Fazil Khan appeared to have been caused by some light sharp-edged weapon, including a blade. In the second instance, the prosecution case cannot fail merely because the witnesses failed to account for injuries on the person of the accused.
9. I find no force in the defence version of the occurrence which had not been put to the injured Ashraf Khan or the complainant. In the first instance, the use of sickle is not in the statement of Fazil Khan. It is also not explained why if the complainant had aggressed and inflicted injuries upon Fazil Khan, no complaint had been lodged about it with the police or a direct complaint filed in Court.
The defence version, therefore, appears to be an afterthought and had been rightly disbelieved.
10. The conviction of the petitioners is, therefore, justified. On the question of sentence, although I am normally reluctant to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction I feel that in view of the actual damage suffered, which is the receipt of three simple injuries, the sentence even after reduction by the appellate Court is on the high side. The petitioners upon their conviction on 23-9-1966 remained in the jail from that time till 22-7-1967 when they were bailed out by this Court. They have, thus, undergone imprisonment for 10 months. I, therefore, reduce their substantive sentences to the period already undergone by them but enhance their fines to Rs, 400 in the case of Ghauns petitioner, and Rs, 200 each in the case of Abbas Khan and Fazil Khan petitioners. The sentences awarded to them in default of the payment of fines will be the same as ordered by the trial Court.
Half the amount of the fine subject to the minimum of Rs, 200 if realized, shall be paid as compensation to the injured namely Ashraf Khan P. W. With this modification in the sentence, the revision, petition is disposed of.