' The State has filed the present criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondents passed by the Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Rahimyar Khan vide his impugned judgment, dated 28-3- 1987.
2. The respondents were challaned by the police under section 326/34, P.P.C. i,e, in furtherance of their common intention for causing injury on complainant Mughal and sent up for trial before the Judicial Magistrate, who framed a charge under section 326/34, P.P.C. To which they denied and claimed trial.
3. The learned trial Court after recording the statements of six P.Ws. Acquitted the respondents vide the impugned judgment. The State has preferred the present appeal against acquittal of the respondents, which was admitted for regular hearing by this Court vide order, 3-2-1988.
4. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 27-10-1985 P.W.1 Mughal lodged F.I.R. That respondent No,1 Muhammad Latif armed with a razor P.1 had caused injuries to the complainant, respondent Manzoor alias Maju caught hold of the complainant, whereas respondent Muhammad Sharif and Jam were armed with pistols, had restrained the P.Ws. From rescuing the complainant. P.W.6 Sanaullah, S.H.O. Recorded complainant Exh.PA. On the statement of P.W.1 on 27-10-1985 at 4-30 p.m. In Civil Hospital, Sadiqabad and sent the same to the police station, where P.W.5 Abdul Rashid, H.C. Recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./1.
5. The prosecution examined six P.Ws. In all to substantiate its case. P.W.1 Mughal complainant corroborated the facts narrated by him in Exh.PA. P.W.2 Ghulam Nabi corroborated the statement of P.W.1 and had stated that Muhammad Latif respondent had caused injuries with razor on the person of P.W.1, whereas Manzoor alias Maju respondent had caught hold of the complainant and respondents Sharif and Jam while armed with pistols had threatened the P.Ws. Not to intervene and rescue P.W.1. P.W.3 Wahid Bakhsh had witnessed the recovery of razor P.1 at the instance of respondent Muhammad Latif secured by P.W.6 S.H.O. Attested by him. P.W.4 Dr. Muhammad Alam had medically examined P.W.1 and had found six injuries on his person and had declared injury No,1 on the nose as grievous, whereas the other injuries were declared simple caused with sharp- edged weapon within the duration of 12 hours. Copy of M.L.R. Is Exh.P.D. Copy of diagram showing the seat of injuries is Exh.P.D./1, X-ray film is Exh.P.D./2 and X-ray report is Exh.P.D./3.
6. P.W.6 Sana Ullah, S:H.O. Is the Investigating Officer who recorded the statement of the complainant Mughal (P.W.1) vide Exh.PA. Prepared injury statement Exh.P.D./1 of the complainant and had also secured razor P.1 at the instance of respondent Muhammad Latif in the presence of P.W.3 vide memo. Exh.P.C.
7. The respondents when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution evidence against them. Respondent Muhammad Latif also denied the recovery of razor P.1 at his instance.
The respondents had not made statements on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments by the learned counsel for the parties passed the impugned judgment.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the respondent and have also perused the record.
9. The motive behind the occurrence was alleged that there was a dispute between one Mehra and Rahim Bakhsh son of the complainant about the wastage of their fields by the animals and the same had happened 15/16 days earlier to the present occurrence. Mehra was not an accused of the present case and during the said period of 15/16 days which elapsed between the alleged dispute, no untoward incident occurred. Motive behind the occurrence has not been proved on record by the prosecution. The complainant alleged that Abdul Latif had inflicted razor injuries on his nose, forehead, left eyebrow, face and right thumb when respondent Manzoor alias Maju had caught hold of him and Muhammad Sharif and Jam, who were armed with pistols had threatened the P.Ws. That if anybody intervened, he would be dealt with. Manzoor alias Maju respondent is alleged to have facilitated the commission of the offence, whereas Muhammad Sharif and Jam are alleged to have threatened the P.Ws. Not to intervene to rescue the complainant P.W.1. Neither pistols were used nor recovery thereof was made at the instance of respondent Muhammad Sharif and Jam, whereas P.W.1 during cross-examination has stated that Muhammad Latif respondent was more powerful than him and was of 27 years of age. Jam and Muhammad Sharif respondents had not fired. The injuries on the person of the complainant clearly show that the same could be caused by one person only and the role ascribed to Manzoor alias Maju respondent is just an embroidery. In the circumstances I am of the view that respondents Manzoor alias Maju, Muhammad Sharif and Jam were rightly acquitted by the trial Court.
10. Now I am left with the case of Muhammad Latif respondent who has been specifically named as the assailant. He had caused injuries to the complainant P.W.1. The doctor P.W.4 has specifically mentioned in M.L.R. Exh.P.D. Injury No, 1 on nose as grievous. Vide X-ray report No,893, dated 27-10- 1985 fracture (cut) of nasal bone was seen, but the Radiologist was not produced to substantiate the said report. In the circumstances I am of the considered view that the injury was simple in nature caused by the sharp-edged weapon and the charge against respondent Muhammad Latif was proved under section 324, P.P.C. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has accepted verbal notice about imposition of fine on respondent Muhammad Latif. Respondent Muhammad Latif remained in jail as undertrial for a period of about one year and six months and I am of the view that the period already undergone shall meet the ends of justice. However, respondent Muhammad Latif is also fined Rs,5,000 or in default of its payment to undergo six months' R.I. The fine if realized, shall be paid to P.W.1 complainant Mughal. The respondent shall deposit the amount of fine within eight days.