' The appellant has been convicted by Sessions Judge, Sukkur for offences under section 307/324. P.
P. C. And sentenced to R. I. For 4 years and fine of Rs, 500 or in default R.. I. For 6 months more under the first count and R. I. For one year under the second count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.
2. It was the case of the prosecution that complainant Rasool Bix along with Ifs father Piral and brother Shafi Muhammad resided at village Sachumetlo. Piral had purchased a garden of dates from father of the appellant against the wishes of the appellant. On 27-7-1976 at 10 or 11 a. m.
Kbamiso had gone to pluck the dates from the tree. Appellant Bakhsho claimed these dates and asked Khamiso to give them to him. There was some quarrel between the two. Complainant Rasul Box went and remonstrated with the appellant not to quarrel with Khamiso. There. Upon the appellant dealt hatchet blows to complainant Rasool Bux on his head and other parts of his body.
On the cries of Rasool Bus his brother Shafi Muhammad and father Piral arrived there and they also received hatchet blows at the hands of the appellant. P. Ws. Mahboob and Gul then reached there and seeing them the appellant threw away the hatchet and took to his heels. Rasool Bus and Shati Muhammad were then taken in a bullock cart to Police Station Kandhara where the F.
1. R. Was registered. S. H.
0., Kandhera visited the scene of offence situated 50 paces away from the date garden on the village street. There was blood at the scene and some dragging marks on the ground. The S. H.
0. Then recorded statements of witnesses Khamiso Mohboob, Khuda Bux and others. Appellant Bakhshu was arrested from his house. He had some injuries over his forehead and the forehead was bandaged. After completing the investigation the S. H.
0. Sent up the appellant in Court.
3. The medical evidence shows that Rasool Buz had sustained the following injuries t-
(I) Incised wound 5' x x muscle deep anterio posteriorly over top o cranium.
(ii) Incised wound 1' x x muscle deep over middle of nose.
(Hi) Incised wound ie x x muscle deep over donum of root of right little finger.
' The injured was referred to Civil Surgeon for X-Ray examination and the X-Ray revealed fracture of right parietal bone. Injury No, 1, was therefore, grievous in nature while rest of the injuries were simple.
4. On the person of Shaft Muhammad Medical Officer found tte following injuries, (0 Incised wound i' x ii x muscle deep over middle of posterior aspect of left index finger, 00 Incised wound e x 1/8' x muscle deep over middle of posterior aspect of left middle finger. MO Incised wound y x 1/8' x muscle deep over middle of posterior aspect of left finger.
(tr) Incised wound 4' x f" x muscle deep over ventral aspect of middle of left palm.
' All these Injuries were simple.
5. It has first been argued by Mr. Hassan Inamullah that the evidence is discrepant regarding the actual scene of offence. According to the evidence the incident took place in the date garden while according to mashirnama of the scene, the incident occurred on the village street. However, it is clear from the evidence of the S. H. 0, that the place of incident was only 10 paces from the boundry of the garden in question. In common parlance villagers would not, therefore, differentiate between these two places which were only 10 paces apart.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has then dwelt on the contradictions in evidence of the eye-witnesses. According to Rasool Bux cries of Khamiso were heard from the garden and he, therefore, want on the cries and saw his brother who complained to him that Bakhshu had beaten him for no cause. That when he reached the 'wardat Bakhshu was still beating his brother Khamiso.
The learned Advocate has pointed out that the evidence of Shafi Mohammad on the other hand shows that Khamiso came weeping in the house and informed that Bakhshu had beaten him.
Thereafter Rasool Buz went out and after some time alarm was raised. It has then been pointed out that Mahboob Gul and Khamiso according to evidence of P. W. Khamiso arrived at the wank: after the appellant had fled away but according to P, W. Mahboob himself he and Gul reached the wardat and saw the appellant causing hatchet injuries to Rasool Buz and Shafi Mohammad.
7. However, such minor discrepanies are bound to occur as the power of perception of human being are not alike. The incident has evidently occurred, in the course of which Rasool Bux and Shafi Muhammad have sustained injuries at the hands of appellant Bakhshu at the date garden sold by Bakhshu's father to father of the injured. It is immaterial whether the fight took place inside or outside the garden or whether the witnesses other than the injured saw the blows being inflicted or not. It can hardly be disputed that Piral had recovered the hatchet which was snatched by him from the appellant or was thrown at him by the appellant or was left by the appellant while he was running away. There is ocular evidence of Khamiso with whom the quarrel started and Piral their father.
8. Lastly there is evidence of Mehboob who came to the scene practically at the end of the fight.
The incident took place in broad daylight and there could not be any question of mistaken identity.
The report was lodged immediately after the occurrence at about 1 p.m. And P. W. Piral h produced the hatchet which was blood-stained and which he had snatched ad from appellant Bakhshu. All these foots and circumstances, theiefors, leav no room for any doubt that the appellant had actually caused the above' injuries in the course of an altercation.
9. The learned counsel for the state has suggested that the sentence of 4 years passed against the appellant might be reduced. However, the question of sentence is always a matter within the discretion of the trial Court and unless there are very strong reasons the question of sentence should not ordinarily be interfered with. The conviction and the sentence pas against the appellant are accordingly maintained and his appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.