MUKHTAR HUSSAIN Versus STATE
This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 253/82 and Criminal Revision No. 82 of 1983.
2. The appellant was convicted for an offence under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced to six years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for a period of one year R.I. It was directed that half of the fine, if realised, shall be paid to Mushtaq Ahmad P.W. The occurrence took place at about 6-00 p.m. on 10-11-1980 on the shop of Mushtaq Ahmad P.W. at New Khan Adda in Leiah city. Mushtaq Ahmad P.W. received a single blow in his abdomen, which was declared to be dangerous to life. The appellant was caught alongwith the weapon of offence at the spot and the matter was reported to the police and the Investigating Officer arrested the appellant from the spot and recovered knife P-1 from Amjid Ali P.W. who had snatched it from the appellant.
3. The case of the appellant is of total denial. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the evidence produced by the prosecution is interested and uncorroborated and, therefore, no conviction could be based on the basis of the prosecution evidence.
4. Apart from Mushtaq Ahmad P.W. the injured witness, his brother Muhammad Nawaz has appeared as an eye-witness. Muhammad Ismail P.W.3 and Amjid Ali P.W.6 have also appeared as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The four eye-witnesses, agreed with the prosecution story that it was the appellant who stabbed Mushtaq Ahmad P.W. and that he was over-powered before he could repeat the blow. The learned counsel, however, has pointed out that Ismail P.W. is an interested witness as litigation is going on between the family of the appellant and a brother of Ismail P.W. He has also argued that the other witnesses are close friends of said Ismail P.W. and, therefore, their evidence should be excluded. I am afraid, I find no force in this argument. The fact that a brother of Ismail has litigation with the family of the appellant could at best show interestedness of Ismail P.W. alone but since no particular relationship has been shown to exist between Ismail and the remaining eye-witnesses this cannot recoil on the testimony of the other eye-witnesses. Mushtaq Ahmad, injured witness and his brother Muhammad Nawaz P.W. and similarly Amjid Ali P.W.6 have no enmity with the appellant. Their evidence is direct and to the point and cannot be rejected on any score. There is also no reason to assume that the appellant has been substituted for the real assailant. The appellant was caught at the spot and handed over to the police. The appellant's total denial of the occurrence is, therefore, of no avail.
5. The learned counsel has also argued that there are discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses but to my mind the discrepancies regarding the visit to the hospital and to the police station are inconsequential as there is no discrepancy regarding the crucial part of the evidence namely the actual assault on Mushtaq Ahmad P.W. and the appellant being caught hold at the spot by the P.Ws.
6. The learned counsel in the end argues that no offence under section 307, P.P.C. is proved as according to the learned counsel there is no evidence to show that the appellant intended to cause the death of Mushtaq Ahmad P.W. For this purpose the evidence of the Doctor is important. The peritoneum had been cut and the injury was declared to be dangerous to life. The eye-witnesses also point out that the assailant aimed a second blow on the victim but he was prevented from doing so by the witnesses. Similarly the fact that the appellant was motivated to attack the witnesses for the reason that the witness had objected to the activities of the appellant also goes to show that the appellant was in a revengeful mood.
In view of the above considerations I find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. Similarly the revision petition has no force as the sentence of six years' R.I. awarded to the appellant appears to be adequate in the circumstances of case. It is also dismissed.
S.G.D. Appeal dismissed.