SAINDAD Versus STATE

This is an appeal against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Sukkur, convicting the appellants for an offence under section 325 read with section 34, P. P. C., and sentencing them to undergo R. I. for two years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each.

2. On 23rd October 1965, at about noon the complainant was ploughing his land when the present appellants appeared at the scene. They were armed with lathis. After telling the complainant that he was making complaints against them, they would teach him a lesson, they forcibly removed his two bullocks. The complainant when tried to resist was given lath! blows. He raised cries which attracted Ali Murad and Dur Muhammad and while they tried to intervene they were also given blows. Thereafter the appellants drove away the bullocks. The complainant accompanied by Ali Murad and Dur Muhammad went to Bagerji Police Station and lodged first report. All the three injured persons were sent to the hospital. During investigation the appellants were arrested. The bullocks were subsequently secured from the cattle pound where the same were said to have been impounded by one Kabil. After usual investigation the appellants were challaned who proclaimed their innocence and denied the allegations. It was stated that they had been implicated on account of the enmity. Saindad appellant had further alleged that on that day the complainant party had gone to his village and attacked him on account of the previous enmity and he too had lodged a first report with the Police.

3. The learned Sessions Judge on appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that it was doubtful that any robbery of the bullocks was committed. This view was founded upon the recovery of the bullocks from the cattle-pound having been impounded by one Kabil who was not connected with the So far the injuries are concerned he came to the conclusion that the appellants had caused the injuries in furtherance of their common intention.

4. The prosecution evidence is mainly ocular which consists of three witnesses, namely, Nabi Bux, Ali Murad and Dur Muhammad. It has been stated by the complainant that he was ploughing the land when the appellants came armed with lathis and forcibly removed his bullocks and while he resisted he was given lath! blows by the appellants. On his cries two 1 witnesses Ali Murad and Dur Muhammad came and they were also attacked by the appellants. Ali Murad and Dur Muhammad had been examined and they fully supported the complainant. They were sitting in their houses when they heard the cries of the complainant and went running. They had also seen the appellants inflicting injuries upon Nabi Bux. The presence of these witnesses cannot be doubted as they had sustained the injuries.

5. The evidence of the complainant and the two witnesses finds corroboration from the medical evidence. According to the medical officer who had examined the injured persons and was subsequently examined in the case there were 6 injuries on Dur Muhammad, 4 injuries on Ali Murad and 5 injuries on Nabi Bux, all caused by blunt weapon such as lathis. One of the injuries of Ali Murad was fracture of third metacorpal of the right hand and this was detected on X-ray examination. The medical officer excluded the possibility of this injury having been caused by a fall. The evidence was believed by the learned Sessions Judge and there is no reason to disagree with him. The prosecution case is further supported by the statement of Saindad appellant. He admitted the incident but pleaded that the complainant and the two witnesses came to his village and caused injuries to him in order to kill him. He had also lodged the, first report which had been brought on record. The statement of the appellants that the complainant and witnesses caused injuries to him is not supported by any witness. Apart from the fact that no witness was examined to support the incident as alleged by him there is also no medical evidence in proof of the injuries. His bare statement, therefore, cannot be taken into consideration. In the statement as well as in the first report the presence of the two witnesses has been admitted. It may be mentioned here that the investigating officer had found the blood at the scene of offence alleged by the prosecution. There is nothing on record to show that there was any blood at the place where the appellant was alleged t have been attacked. Thus the story told by the complainant that he was attacked in his land and Ali Murad and Dur Muhammad arrived on the alarm raised by him and sustained the injuries is fully borne out.

5. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the witnesses were related and, therefore, their evidence could not be relied upon. I find no force in this contention. i The relationship alone is not enough to discard the testimony. It has been fully established that all the three persons 'had received injuries and further the incident had taken place in broad day-light. So there can be no question of any mistaken identity, It was further alleged that Sohrab who was related to the complainant had filed a robbery case about a month before this incident and in that case appellants Kambir and Jan had been implicated. This is so but the enmity cuts both ways and it appears to me that on account of that grouse the appellants inflicted the injuries upon the complainant party. Complainant and witnesses had received number of injuries and, therefore, it supports them that several persons have taken part in this affair. Saindad appellant has also produced copies of three judgments relating to some other cases. Two of the cases were filed by Sohrab, one was of the robbery and the other was under sections 107 and 151, Cr. P. C. and the third case was about the theft of oil seeds from the land of Muhammad Bachal and Khairo. This case related to the year 1960 and was filed against Gul Hassan, Balu and Sultan. It has not been established that the prosecution in the present case had any thing to do with the prosecution of that case.

6. Lastly the learned counsel urged that there was no common intention and, therefore, the appellants could not be convicted by virtue of the provisions of section 34, P. P. C. This contention is equally devoid of force. All the four appellants had gone armed with lathis and they inflicted injuries upon the complainant and the two witnesses. So it must be held that they shared the necessary common intention to render them liable for the grievous hurt that was caused during the attack 7. In the result the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are maintained and their appeal is dismissed. They are on bail and their bail bonds are cancelled. Non-bailable e warrants be issued against them to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.

Appeal dismissed.