FALAK SHER Versus THE STATE

The facts giving rise to this revision briefly are that Jaffar Ali, Nasir Ali and Younas petitioners alongwith Noor Muhammad acquitted accused, were tried under section 307/34, P.P.C. for murderous assault on Ata Muhammad P.W.2. On the conclusion of the trial, the co‑accused namely Noor Muhammad was acquitted and the petitioners were convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to four years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.4,000 each in default thereof to further R.I. for six months each. The appeal of the petitioners against this order failed on 3‑9‑1984, hence this revision.

2. The learned counsel while conceding that Ata Muhammad P.W.2 had received injuries at the hands of the petitioners has challenged the nature of the offence committed by them. He submits that from the nature of the injuries and the conduct of the petitioners, no case of murderous assault is made out.

Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant supported the judgment of the Courts below.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention had given 12 injuries with Dang on the person of Ata Muhammad P.W.2. None of the injuries individually or collectively were dangerous to life. The petitioners did not cause any grievous injuries on the vital part of the body. Out of 12 injuries suffered by Ata Muhammad P. W., two injuries found on the front of chest and on the left thigh were declared grievous. The prosecution did not care to produce the radiologist to prove the X‑Ray reports, therefore, the petitioners could not be convicted under section 326, P.P.C. In view of the location and nature of the injuries and the conduct of the petitioners I am of the view that no case of murderous assault punishable under section 307, P.P.C. was made out. In these circumstances, it would be in accordance with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases that the conviction of the petitioners under section 307/34, P.P.C. is set aside and altered to one under section 324/34, P.P.C.

4. This brings me to the question of sentence. Keeping in view the locations and nature of injuries, I feel inclined to sentence the petitioners to 2 years' R.I. each and a fine of Rs.2,000 each, in default thereof, further R.I. for 3 months each. The petitioners shall get the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. With this modification, the petition is dismissed.

M. A. K. Order accordingly.