GHULAM YASIN Versus State
ORDER
SOHAIL NASIR, J.--- Ghulam Yasin (2) Ghulam Younis (3) Abdul Qadir and (4) Muhammad Mumtaz Rasheed (petitioners) faced trial in case FIR No.46 recorded on 17.08.2011 under sections 337-F(vi)/337-A(iv)/337-L(2)/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Sadar Tounsa District Dera Ghazi Khan on the complaint of Manzoor Ahmad (PW-1)/respondent No.2 and on conclusion thereof vide judgment dated 03.09.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Dera Ghazi Khan all they were convicted and sentenced as under:-
Ghulam Yasin. Under section 337-A(iv), P.P.C. to pay Arsh valuing Rs.2,19,775/- to injured Mehboob Ahmad.
Ghulam Younas. Under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. to pay Daman, valuing Rs.30,000/- to injured Manzoor Ahmad.
Abdul Qadir. Under section 337-L(2), P.P.C. to pay Daman valuing Rs. 10,000/- to injured Maqsood Ahmad.
Muhammad Mumtaz. Under section 337- L(2), P.P.C. to pay Daman valuing Rs.10,000/- to injured Maqsood Ahmad.
2. Petitioners filed an appeal but with no success as the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Dera Ghazi Khan.
3. Being aggrieved from the decisions of two courts below, petitioners have approached this court through the instant Criminal Revision.
4. In brief, facts of the case are that on 08.08.2011 at about 05:00 p.m., all petitioners armed with Sotas attacked and caused injuries on the persons of Mehboob Ahmad (PW- 2), Maqsood Ahmad (PW-3) and Manzoor (PW-1). Specific allegation against Ghulam Yasin was that he gave an injury on the nose of Mehmood Ahmad; Abdul Qadir caused injuries on the left arm of Maqsood Ahmad; Muhammad Younas inflicted Sota blow causing an injury on the right rib of Manzoor whereas, Muhammad Mumtaz gave an injury on the back of Maqsood Ahmad.
5. On conclusion of investigation report under section 173, Cr.P.C. (Challan) was submitted in trial court.
6. A charge framed under the earlier referred penal provisions by the learned trial court on 15.12.2012 was not pleaded guilty by petitioners whereafter prosecution had produced Manzoor Ahmad/injured (PW-1), Mehboob Ahmad/injured (PW-2), Maqsood Ahmed/injured (PW-3), Mushtaq Ahmaed eye-witness (PW-4), Dr. Sher Muhammad (PW-5), Dr. Muhammad Ahsan (PW-6), Muhammad Younas/eye-witness (PW-7), Ghulam Abbas SI/I.O. (PW-8), Ilm-ud-Din Inspector (PW-9) and Dr. Abdul Rahman Amir (PW-10).
7. In their examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. petitioners pleaded their false involvement.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the impugned judgments are against law and facts; petitioners have been falsely involved in this case; prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; no recovery was effected from any of the petitioners; during investigation petitioners were declared innocent; none of the injured despite constitution of medical board appeared for their re-examination. He finally maintains that both the courts below committed serious illegalities while convicting the petitioners.
9. Revision has been opposed by learned counsel for complainant and learned ADPP.
10. HEARD.
11. There are three injured eye-witnesses of this case who while attending the witness box narrated the facts and manners of occurrence with full consistency. They also explained that in what manners petitioners launched attack and caused injuries to them. Because of injuries on their persons, their presence at crime scene could not be negated. The defence was also unable to shatter credibility of any of the three injured eye-witnesses during the cross-examination.
12. The injuries on the persons of all three injured are supported and corroborated from the statement of Dr. Muhammad Ahsan (PW-6) as well as Dr. Abdul Rahman (PW-8).
13. No doubt the petitioners were declared as innocent during the investigation but only for the reason that the injured persons did not opt to appear before the Medical Board for their re-examination. The learned trial court has made judicial scrutiny of the statement of Dr. Muhammad Ahsan (PW-6) and the medical reports he had issued whereafter the said piece of evidence was believed. In these circumstances non-appearance of injured witnesses before Medical Board during the investigation shall not be fatal to prosecution at all and for this reason also the opinion of the Investigating Officer is of no worth who even otherwise on this ground alone could not declare the petitioners as innocent in this case.
14. All petitioners have also deposited the amount of Arsh and Daman in the learned trial court. Both the courts below after taking into consideration each and every aspect of the case, rightly concluded in favour of prosecution. Learned counsel for petitioners is completely failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the decisions of two courts below hence this Criminal Revision is dismissed.
SA/G-24/L Revision Petition dismissed.