MANZOORAN Versus MUHAMMAD ALI

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J.- -This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Mst.Manzooran against the judgment dated 8 June, 1983 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.308 of 1981 whereby the conviction and sentence awarded to Muhammad Ali and Hayat respondents were altered.

2. The background is that the aforesaid respondents and four others were tried under sections 302/34 P.P.C. read with section 109 P.P.C. and vide judgment of the trial Court dated 11 April, 1981 the aforesaid two respondents only were convicted under section 304 Part I , P. P. C . and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine. On appeal the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide the impugned judgment altered their conviction from one under section 304 Part I P.P. C. to that under section 304 Part II P.P. C. and reduced their sentence from life imprisonment to seven years' R.I. each with the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P. C. The sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court was maintained.

3. The deceased in this case is Mst.Fatima, mother of the present petitioner. The occurrence took place on 9 May, 1980 at 10 a.m. in Chak Fathuwala Dakhli, Police Station Chowk Khurd, District Jhang. The F.I.R. was lodged in this case by Mst.Manzooran petitioner. Human blood-stained Pawa and Sota had been recovered from the aforesaid respondents on the day when they were arrested. There are three eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely Mst.Manzooran, Sardara and Muhammad. The motive is that there was a dispute pertinent to ownership of land between the deceased and the respondents. The disputed land was partly in possession of the petitioner and the deceased (her mother) and partly in possession of her uncles i.e. the accused party. The deceased made an application to the Revenue authorities to get possession of the same. The prosecution version is that on the day of occurrence while both the parties were waiting for Patwari and Girdawar the two respondents armed with Pawa and Sota came there and caused injuries to the deceased with their respective weapons. As a result of these injuries she died.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel that the occurrence has not been denied in this case. According to the medical evidence the deceased received six injuries on the legs region. In the opinion of the doctor the death had been caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid injuries which were sufficient to cause shock and death. But in his cross-examination at the trial stage since the doctor had stated that the injuries were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, just for this sentence of the medical officer, the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court arrived at the conclusion that since the injuries were caused on the non-vital parts like the legs and since according to the doctor the same were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the respondents did not intend to cause death of the deceased, consequently conviction and sentence under section 304 Part I were not proper and that therefore these were altered as stated above. It was submitted that merely one sentence uttered by the medical officer in the cross-examination should have not been made the basis for altering the conviction and sentence awarded to the respondents by the trial Court.

5. Leave is granted to consider as to whether in this case the High Court had arrived at a proper conclusion in accordance with the well-established principles of the safe administration of criminal g justice. If the aforesaid respondents have already been released after undergoing their sentence of imprisonment then bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount be issued returnable to the Assistant Commissioner Chiniot.

6. M.I./M-310/S. Leave granted.