GHULAM HAIDER Versus THE STATE
Ghulam Haider, Ghulam Hassan, Allah Bakhsh and Yaseen were convicted under section 325/34, P.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500 each or in default thereof to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months each. Out of the fine, if realized, Rs.1,500 were ordered to be paid to Allah Ditta injured (P.W.) as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. By the same judgment, passed on 24-5-1981, the learned Magistrate with section 30 powers (J), Bahawalpur, acquitted Allah Rakha and Akhtar. The convicts challenged their conviction and sentence in appeal. The learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, on 1-6-1981, maintained their conviction but reduced their substantive sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year each while the fine of Rs.500 was maintained but in the event of default in payment of fine petitioners were ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. If realized, the fine was directed to be paid to the injured. The convicts have filed revision against their conviction and sentence which is being disposed of by this judgment.
2. On 16-11-1977 at 8-00 a.m. petitioners and their co-accused attacked Allah Ditta (P.W..) and caused him eleven injuries including the injury described as fracture of left leg tibia bone which on X-ray was declared as grievous. Ghulam Haider petitioner was armed with a hatchet, Ghulam Hassan petitioner carried a Dang, Allah Bakhsh and Yaseen petitioners had a Soti each while the acquitted accused were empty handed according to the facts stated in the F.I.R. The trial Court believed the ocular evidence in the testimony of Allah Ditta injured and his maternal-uncle Chulam Rasul (P.W.2).
3. It has been argued before me that Allah Ditta injured (P.W.) made improvements on the facts disclosed by him in the F.I.R. and tried to attribute active role to the two acquitted accused and also attributed specific role to the petitioners although he did not do so in the F.I.R. It was further argued that no independent witness of the locality had been examined and the medical evidence did not disclose any injury with sharp-side of the hatchet.
4. I have been taken through the evidence in this case which I have myself read and considered in the light of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. I find that this is a day light occurrence and the petitioners were previously known to the first informant and Ghulam Rasul (P.W.). The first informant had named the petitioners in the F.I.R. which was promptly lodged by him. The testimony of Allah Ditta injured and Ghulam Rasul (P.Ws.) is consistent and confidence inspiring. I agree with finding of the trial Court who convicted the petitioners which conviction has been rightly maintained by the Court of appeal.
5. The perusal of the evidence does not lead to the definite conclusion as to who caused grievous injury in this case. No specific injury was attributed to the petitioners or their co-accused in the F.I.R. but at the trial the injured attributed injury on his leg to Ghulam Haider petitioner as well as Muhammad Akhtar since acquitted. Again although Ghulam Haider was alleged to have carried a hatchet but did not use its sharp side as the medical evidence does not show any incised wound on the person of injured. The petitioners have suffered agony of long trial since 16-11-1977. Petitioners remained in custody during the trial and have already undergone rigorous imprisonment for one month after their conviction before their sentence was suspended by this Court. Therefore, I consider it a fit case in the administration of criminal justice to reduce their substantive sentence to already undergone.
6. For the foregoing reasons the conviction of the petitioners is maintained but their substantive sentence is reduced to already undergone while the fine imposed on them is increased from Rs.500 to Rs.1,000 each and in default of its payment petitioners shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months each. If the fine is not paid within a month, petitioners shall surrender to their bail bonds. The fine, if realized shall be paid to Allah Ditta injured (P.W.).
7. With this modification the revision is dismissed.
H.B.T./G-121/L Revision dismissed/order accordingly.