MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus THE STATE

Muhammad Anwar petitioner and four others were tried by Magistrate S.30 T.T. Sing under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. for having launched murderous assault on Muhammad Ismail and Sadiq Masih P.Ws. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

2. To prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Muhammad Ismail P.W.1 stated that at the eventful time Muhammad Anwar gave hatchet blow on his face which caused loss of his left eye, ear and left side's teeth. Sadiq Masih P.W.2 have not supported the prosecution case. He stated he could not say as to who caused him injury. He was declared hostile. Abdul Khaliq P.W.5 and Inayat Ullah P.W.6 supported the allegation against the petitioner. Dr. Khalid Mahmood P.W.9 found a lacerated wound on the left side of the face of Muhammad Ismail. He sent him to D.H.Q. Hospital Faisalabad. Muhammad Ismail was X‑Rayed. The injury was found grievous. The doctor found one simple injury caused with fire arm on the person of Sadiq Masih P.W.2. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence Muhammad Siddique D.W.1, Riaz Ahmad D.W.2 were produced who stated that the petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence.

4 On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate while acquitting the co‑accused, convicted Muhammad Anwar petitioner and Nasir co‑accused under section 307/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to three years' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each in default R.I. for three months. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Nasir Ali and dismissed the appeal to the extent of Muhammad Anwar petitioner, hence this revision.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that Sadiq Masih has not supported the prosecution case, that the eye‑witnesses are not reliable and that the Radiologist has not been examined by I the prosecution. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6, I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that from the evidence on record it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Muhammad Ismail received injuries with hatchet on his face at the hands of Muhammad Anwar petitioner. Muhammad Ismail has fully implicated the petitioner. He stands supported by Abdul Khalik and Inayat Ullah P.Ws. These witnesses have no serious enmity with the petitioner. I do not see material contradictions/ discrepancies in their statements. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut prosecution case and its evidence. No case of substitution has been made out by the defence. The Courts below have properly appreciated .the evidence. This brings me to the nature of offence. Here I feel inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that no case punishable under section 307/324, P.P.C. is made out inasmuch as from the conduct of the petitioner that he did not repeat the blow, it appears that he did not intend to cause the death of Muhammad Ismail. No doubt the injury has been declared grievous by Dr. Khalid Mahmood P.W. 9 but since the Radiologist has not been examined, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be convicted A under section 326, P.P.C. and his conviction has to be altered into under section 324, P.P.C. Keeping in view the location of the injury and the apparent damage done by it, I am of the view that sentence of two years' R.I. and fine of Rs.3,000 in default thereof to further R.I. for six months would meet the case. Order accordingly. The fine when recovered be paid to Muhammad Ismail P.W.2 as compensation. The petitioner shall also get the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C.

M.A.K. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.