MUHAMMAD NADEEM alias Pappu Versus THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Magistrate Section 30 Sialkot, whereby he on 11‑11‑1987, while acquitting Muhammad tharif co‑accused, convicted Muhammad Nadeem alias Pappu appellant under section 307/34, P.P.C. for murderous assault on Manzoor Hussain P.W.1 and under section 324, P.P.C. for causing simple injury to Manzoor Hussain S/O Noor Hussain P.W. 5 and sentenced him to 7 years, R .l and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default thereof one year R.I. a/s 307/34 and to 3 years, R.I. under section 324/34, P.P.C. He was also directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the injured persons. The sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The charge against the appellant was that he and his co‑accused in furtherance of their common intention launched murderous assault on Manzoor Hussain on 7‑4‑1984 at 4‑30 p.m., in village Fateh Garh Police Station Saddar, Sialkot. The appellant and his co‑accused denied the charge and claimed to be' tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced 8 witnesses. Manzoor Hussain appeared as P.W.1. He supported the prosecution case. He stated that the appellants and his co‑accused variously armed had launched murderous assault on him and Manzoor Hussain son of Noor Hussain and caused injuries to them. He stated that Muhammad Nadeem appellant was carrying knife and had given two knife blows one the palm, of his hand and one on his armpit. Manzoor Hussain P.W.4 and Manzoor Hussain S/O Noor Hassan P.W.5 supported the statement of Manzoor Hussain P.W.1 in all material particulars. Dr. Sajid Ali medically examined Manzoor Hussain P.W.1. He found six incised wounds on his person. Injury No.6 which was on the abdomen was found to be dangerous and grievous. The rest were simple. He found two injuries on the person of Manzoor Hussain son of Noor Hussain which were caused by the sharp‑edged weapon and , were simple in nature. Nadeem petitioner and Waseem co‑accused were medically examined by Dr. Muhammad Riaz. The doctor found one simple injury on the person of Nadeem appellant caused by sharp‑edged weapon. He found seven simple injuries on the person of Waseem co‑accused caused by blunt as well sharp‑edged weapon. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances and raised plea of false implication. Muhammad Nadeem also gave evidence on oath in disproof of charge against him. He stated that the injured P.W. had opened attack on him and Waseem co‑accused and they, lead acted in self‑defence. In defence two witnesses namely Aman Ullah D.W.1 and Fattu Sain D.W.2 were produced. Aman Ullah D.W.1 stated that Waseem 0‑accused was attacked by some persons who were armed with chhuris. On the alarm raised by him, Nadeem appellant came there empty handed. He was also injured by those persons and during the fight, some of the people who had attacked Waseem received chhuri injuries at the hands of their companions. Fattu D.W.2 stated that 6/7 persons had beaten Waseem co‑accused and when Nadeem appellant came there, he was also given beating by those persons. The learned trial Court examined Dr. Muhammad Riaz as court‑witness.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt; that the eye‑witnesses are not dependable; that no independent person from the locality was produced by the prosecution; that the injuries of the accused have been the suppressed by being true because the injuries on the persons of Waseem co‑accused are caused by blunt as well as sharp‑edged weapon which shows that at least two persons had attacked him whereas, the injuries on the person of Manzoor Hussain P.W.1 and Manzoor Hussain P.W.5 are caused by the sharp‑edged weapon which shows that only one person had injured them; that the occurrence took place in front of the house of the accused in village Fateh Garh whereas the complainant party reside in Sialkot and that 'here is not satisfactory evidence that the eye‑witnesses had really come to attend Valeema in village Fateh Garh. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. On my independent assessment of the evidence and the circumstances appearing in the case, I am of the view that it was a case of free fight and each participant was responsible for free fight and each participant was responsible for his individual act, for the reasons that the occurrence took place on an open place; that both the sides received injuries, that on the side of the complainant, Manzoor Hussain P.W.1 and Manzoor Hussain P.W.5 received 8 injuries, that on the side of the accused, Nadeem appellant and Waseem co‑accused also received 8 injuries, the factum of injures on both sides shows that the parties were duly armed at the time of occurrence and had assembled on the spot in full expectation of an armed conflict, hence judging from their acts and conduct, it can safely be said that each party had anticipated resistance from the. other and were determined to have a trial of strength and as such it is not possible to say that the accused were acting in exercise of right of private defence of person. There can be no two opinions that in case of free fight, each accused would be responsible for his individual acts.
7. Now I proceed to determine the criminal liability of Nadeem appellant. I find, he did not cause grievous or dangerous injury to Manzoor Hussain P.W.1. He caused three simple injuries to Manzoor Hussain P.W.1 and one simple B injury to Manzoor Hussain P.W.5 with knife. So, he is liable to be punished under section 324, P.P.C. on two counts.
8. As a consequence of the above discussion, the conviction of the appellant under section 307/34, P.P.C. is set aside. Instead he is convicted under section 324, P.P.C. for causing injuries to Manzoor Hussain P.W.1, and sentenced to one C year R.I. His conviction under section 324, P.P.C. for causing injuries to Manzoor Hussain P.W.5 is maintained but the sentence of imprisonment of three years, R.I. is reduced to one year R.I. The sentences will run concurrently. The appeal ands disposed of in the above terms.
AX.H./M‑928/L. Order accordingly.