MUHAMMAD LATIF Versus THE STATE
Muhammad Latif petitioner was convicted under sections 308 and 451, P.P.C. and sentenced to two years' R.I. and six months' R.I. respectively therein by Magistrate Section 30, Chunian on 28‑9‑1980. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. His appeal failed in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur on 20‑11‑1983. He has come up in revision.
2. The occurrence took place at about 7/8 a.m. on 4‑7‑1979. Barkat Ali complainant (P.W.1) lodged the F.I.R. on the next day at 5/6 p.m. The version given was that the complainant left as usual in the morning for doing labour in the fields. At about 7/8 a.m. in his absence his wife Mst. Fatima (P.W.3) and Mst. Sattan (the mother of the petitioner) quarrelled and were separated. Mst. Sattan complained to the petitioner who came from the brick‑kiln and caught hold of Mst. Fatima while sitting in Deori from her pig tail. She was pulled out in the Bazar where Mst. Sattan was also present. The petitioner‑‑gave kick blows to Mst. Fatima, one in the abdomen, one in the back and one on the left leg. Mst. Sattan placed a cloth round the neck of Mst. Fatima. In the meantime Hasham (P.W.2) and Riaz Ahmad (given up) reached the spot and separated them.
3. Mst. Sattan and the petitioner were challaned and tried. Mst. Sattan was acquitted by the learned Magistrate.
4. The petitioner in his statement at the close of the trial pleaded that false case had been reported against him due to enmity. He produced Barkat Ali and Shahab Din (D.Ws.l and 2) in defence. The former stated that Mst. Sattan came to his Dera and told him that the husband of Mst. Fatima had cut joke with her (Mst. Sattan's) daughter. There was a Punchait wherein Mst. Fatima and the complainant were called and reconciliation effected. To the same effect is the statement of Shahab Din.
5. Mst. Ghulam Fatima (P.W.3) corroborated by Hasham and Barkat (P.Ws. 1 and 2) supported the prosecution case. Mst. Fatima denied that her husband had cut a joke with the daughter of Mst. Sattan and there had been a dispute. The witnesses are independent and there is nothing against them in cross‑examination. Might be as stated by the D.Ws. due to cutting of joke with the daughter of Mst. Sattan the ladies quarrelled. Complainant, of course, was not present at the time of actual occurrence. Mst. Fatima was medically examined by Dr. Muhammad Rafi (P.W.4) on 4‑7‑1979. He did not find any injury or injury mark on her person and deposed that she complained to him of pain in the abdomen, chest and right leg. So even if due to dispute between Mst. Sattan and Mst. Fatima or due to cutting of joke by the complainant with the daughter of Mst. Sattan, Mst. Fatima was manhandled, only kicks were given by the petitioner and these were of such type that no mark of violence was visible on the person of Mst. Fatima to the doctor. In such circumstances the offence only under section 323, P.P.C. could have been concluded against the petitioner.
6. The revision petition is, therefore, partly allowed and the conviction under sections 308 and 451, P.P.C. is set aside. The petitioner is convicted under section 323, P.P.C. instead. He has been behind the bars during and after the trial and so the sentence already undergone would suffice. He is on bail and stands discharged of the bail bonds.
N.H.Q./M‑318/L Order accordingly.