MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Versus THE STATE
This is an appeal by Muhammad Tufail 22, challenging his conviction under sections 326 and 324, P.P.C. by a Magistrate Section 30, Chunian, District Kasur, who vide judgment, dated 3-3-1987 sentenced him to suffer 4 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000 or in default 3 months' R.I. under section 326, P.P.C. He was directed to pay Rs.5,000 as compensation to Muhammad Tufail P.W. or in default to suffer 3 months' S.I. He was further sentenced to 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000 or in default 3 months' R.I. under section 324, P. P. C. He was directed to pay Rs.2,000 as compensation to Muhammad Saddique P.W. or in default to undergo 2 months' S.I. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run consecutively.
Abdur Rehman 65, Muhammad Yousaf son of Eisa 50, Muhammad Yousaf son of Jhanda 32 and Manzoor Ahmad 32, all co-accused of the appellant were acquitted by the same judgment.
2. I have carefully gone through the evidence on record and have heard learned counsel for the parties. The prosecution case is supported amongst others by Muhammad Javid P.W.3, Muhammad Tufail P.W.8 and Muhammad Saddique P.W.9, the three injured witnesses. Dr. Javid Hayat P.W.1 medically examined these three injured witnesses and Dr. Muhammad Ashraf P.W.2 examined Muhammad Tufail accused appellant. In defence besides appearing in support of their own case the accused examined four witnesses. On perusal of the entire evidence, I am of the opinion that the conviction of Muhammad Tufail appellant under sections 326and 324 was rightly recorded. Mr. K.T. Hussain, Advocate appearing for appellant does not challenge the conviction of Muhammad Tufail under these two offences.
3. It is however, vehemently contended by the learned counsel that Muhammad Tufail accused was arrested on 18-6-1986. He was not allowed bail during pendency of the trial or this appeal which means that he is in lock-up for the last about 11 years. Secondly the occurrence appears to have taken place all of a sudden. Muhammad Tufail accused received 14 injuries on his person. These injuries were not explained in the F. I. R. or in the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Thirdly, the occurrence took place at the Dera of Muhammad Yousaf acquitted accused. Fourthly, Muhammad Tufail P.W. received three injuries on his person. One of these was on the back of chest and grievous in nature. The remaining two injured P.Ws. received one injury each which were simple in nature. Finally, that the injury on the person of Muhammad Tufail P.W. did not result in fracture of any bone or any vital part of the body. It was declared grievous because the cavity has been injured. It is, therefore, argued that the sentence awarded to the appellant was excessive and uncalled for. Learned counsel for the complainant and the State controverted these contentions.
4. The occurrence admittedly took place at the Dera of Muhammad Yousaf, an acquitted accused. It appears that the parties assembled there in an effort to arrive at some compromise. They all of a sudden started fighting with each other without any premeditation. In this fight Muhammad Tufail accused and three witnesses received injuries. Although injury on the person of Muhammad Tufail P.W. was declared grievous but it did not result in damage of any vital part of the body. It was admitted by Dr. Javid Hayat P.W.1 that Muhammad Tufail had come to him for medical examination on foot. In view of these circumstances, I am of the view that the sentence awarded to the appellant was rather harsh.
5. I accordingly sentence Muhammad Tufail appellant to 3 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000 or in default 3 months' R.I. under section 326, P.P.C. He will pay Rs.5,000 as compensation to Muhammad Tufail P.W. or in default suffer 3 months' S.I. The conviction and sentence under section 324, P.P.C. are maintained. The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The appellant will be allowed benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. This appeal is dismissed subject to above modification.
S. A./M-622/L Sentence, reduced.