SHAHID MANSOOR AHMAD Versus THE STATE
1. Shahid Manzoor Ahmed was tried by Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Kasur, for an offence under section 307/326/34, P.P.C. At the conclusion of the trial the learned Magistrate vide his judgment dated 26-2-1991, convicted and sentenced him under section 326, P.P.C. to 6 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default one year's R.I. It was further directed that in case of recovery of fine, half of it shall be paid to Muhammad Tariq injured as compensation. The convict has appealed. Muhammad Jaffar complainant, brother of the injured has filed a revision praying that the sentence of 6 years be enhanced to life imprisonment. It was further prayed that the sentence of fine may also be enhanced. Both the matters shall be disposed of by this judgment.
2. Prosecution story in brief as disclosed in complaint Exh.PA., lodged by Muhammad Jaffar, brother of Muhammad Tariq was that he had a cloth shop in Naya Bazar, Kasur adjacent to his shop, his younger brother Muhammad Tariq had also a cloth shop. On 26-8-1989, the first informant and his brother were busy in sale at their respective shops when at about 2-30 noon, Shahid Mansoof Ahmad came to the shop of first informant's brother. He threatened Muhammad Tariq by saying that he had come to teach him a lesson for his insult. Simultaneously he threw acid on the face of Muhammad Tariq, which he was carrying in a bottle. First informant's brother was badly burnt and fell on the ground. The occurrence was witnessed apart from the first informant by Muhammad Islam and Munir Anjam. After the occurrence Shahid Mansoor Ahmad fled away. The first informant took his brother Muhammad Tariq injured to Civil Hospital where he was advised by the doctor to take Muhammad Tariq to Lahore.
3. F.I.R. Exh.PA./1, was registered at Police Station "A" Division Kasur on 26-8-1989, at 3-35 p.m. on the statement of Muhammad Jaffar. It was recorded by Allah Din, Head Constable, with regard to an occurrence which was taken place on the same day at 2-30 p.m. in Naya Bazar, Kasur, 2/3 furlongs from the police station.
4. Muhammad Sharif, A.S.I., P.W.7 on 26-8-1989 on learning about the incident came to Civil Hospital and recorded complaint Exh.P.A. of Muhammad Jaffar and sent the same for registration of case. He took into possession shirt P.3, Vest P.4, Shalwar P.1 and Nala P.2 vide memo. Exh.P.B. From the spot he took into possession a bottle P.5, a piece of flat print P.6, Dopatta of white Shafoon P.7, readymade shirt P.8, Dopatta print P.9, one Thaan of Palace P.10, one Thaan Palace P.11, Dopattas of different colours P.12 to P.25 and one suit of Japan made cloth P.26. All the abovesaid articles were burnt from different places and were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.D. On 28-8-1989 he arrested the accused and on completion of the investigation challaned the accused as well.
5. Dr. Zubair Masood, M.O., D.H.Q. Hospital, Kasur, P.W.4 on 26-8-1989 examined Muhammad Tariq and found the following injuries on his person:--
6. (.1) Face and frontal region of skull and neck were burnt;
(2) Right lower arm and hand were burnt;
(3) Back of left hand was burnt;
(4) Inner side of right thigh 10 x 5 c.m. was burnt;
(5) Lower part of left leg 8 x 5 c.m. was burnt.
7. According to him about 15% of the body surface was burnt which was because of acid. Duration of burns was within two hours. All the injuries were kept under observation. On 2-11-1989 injury No.1 was declared grievous and the rest were simple in nature.
8. Prosecution in support of its case produced 8 witnesses in all. Ocular account was furnished by Muhammad Jaffar, Muhammad Tariq and Muhammad Islam, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The doctor who had examined the injured P.W. appeared as P.W.4 Akram Hussain Shah, P.W.5, had witnessed the recovery of different clothes from the shop of Muhammad Tariq P.W. He had attested the memos as well. Allah Din, Head Constable P.W.6 had recorded the formal F.I.R.. Exh.PA./1. The case was investigated by Muhammad Sharif, A.S.I., P.W.7. Muhammad Bashir Bhatti, S.I., P.W.8 had partly investigated the case.
9. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence appellant was examined without oath. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question he stated that the present case was the result of enmity. He however, refused to produce any evidence in his defence nor agreed to appear on oath in his defence.
10. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was absolutely false. Submitted that according to the F.I.R. occurrence had taken place at 2-30 noon whereas the doctor had examined the injured witnesses at 2 noon. Submitted that this on the face of it indicates that the entire prosecution story is a concoction. Contended that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Muhammad Tariq P.W. had received grievous injury or there was permanent disfiguration of any part of his body and, in such circumstances the offence if any would be under section 324, P.P.C. Contended that no reliance on the ocular account could be placed because they were interested and inimical. Submitted that it was established' that there were many people available but no independent person came forward to depose about the occurrence which creates doubt. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant. According to learned counsel for the complainant the witnesses had convincingly explained the discrepancy in time. It was asserted that the doctor who had examined the injured declared injury No.1 as grievous therefore, it did cover the definition of grievous hurt. Argued that P.W3 was an independent witness and even otherwise presence of Muhammad Jaffar P.W.1 could not be doubted because the occurrence took place adjacent to his shop. It was further asserted that the appellant has been, dealt with very leniently therefore, he should be awarded maximum penalty.
11. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance. Prosecution in order to establish its case had mainly relied upon the ocular account furnished by Muhammad Jaffar, Muhammad Tariq and Muhammad Islam, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 respectively. As far as these witnesses are concerned they had given a detailed account of the occurrence. They were put to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be brought on record to indicate that they were inimical towards the appellant or had any motive for appellant's false implication. Muhammad Tariq P.W.2 was injured witness. He had given a convincing account of the occurrence. His statement finds full corroboration from the medical evidence. He was not even suggested any motive which could prompt him to leave the real culprit and A involve the appellant alone. I am convinced that substitution in this case is not possible, therefore, is ruled out. Muhammad Islam, P.W.3 is not related to either side. He is an independent person and had given convincing account of the occurrence. In these circumstances it is held that the eye-witnesses inspire confidence and can safely be relied upon.
12. As far the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that nobody had said that Muhammad Tariq P.W. suffered permanent disfiguration therefore, section 326, P.P.C. is not applicable is without force. The doctor has observed that 15% of body of Muhammad Tariq had suffered burns. He had further stated that the burns were the result of acid, and injury No.1 was declared grievous. The doctor was cross-examined but his statement was not challenged that injury No.1 could not be grievous. In the absence of that it is held that injury No.1 was grievous and the appellant was 1 rightly charged under section 326, P.P.C. The contention of learned counsel that the occurrence was reported to have taken place at 2-30 noon whereas the injured was examined at 2 noon, therefore, the prosecution story is doubtful is also without force. The witnesses have given convincing explanation. According to them the watch from which they took the time had gone out of order, therefore, correct time could not be given. Even otherwise I fail to understand how it can effect the merits of the case when the injured himself had -stated that he had received burn injures because the appellant had thrown acid on him.
13. For what has been discussed above prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond doubt. Therefore, appeal fails which is dismissed.
14. As far as the revision of the complainant is concerned I have noticed that the appellant has already been awarded severe punishment, and enhancing the sentence of imprisonment may not be in the interest of justice. I feel there is some force in the contention of learned counsel for the complainant that the compensation should be enhanced. In these circumstances, while dismissing the revision it is directed that the fine of Rs.10,000 if recovered the whole of it shall be given to Muhammad Tariq the injured witness as compensation. With this observation the appeal of the appellant and the revision of the complainant, both are dismissed.
15. N.H.Q./S-213/L Appeal dismissed.