SARDAR MASIH vs HEERA MASIH and others

' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,477 of 1998 which is directed against the acquittal of Heera Maseeh and others as he alongwith his three co-accused was tried by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Lahore Cantt., who acquitted all the respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Younas Maseeh who was an employee of 'Lahore Corporation was living with his parents. A year prior to the present occurrence Heera Maseeh respondent accused was given beating by the brother of the complainant but matter was patched up between the parties through the respectables of the area but he kept the grudge in his heart.

3. On 19-2-1996 at 12-30 (noon) when Younas Maseeh complainant alongwith his father Sardara Maseeh, Labha Maseeh and Nazir Maseeh were going together in the street they were encountered by Heera Maseeh respondent who alongwith his brothers Rasheed Maseeh, George Maseeh and Faisal Maseeh caught hold Sardar Maseeh (injured) P.W. In his Japha. Goarge Maseeh alias Jaj Maseeh raised a Lalkara to murder Sardar Maseeh on which Heera Maseeh started giving blows to Sardar Maseeh with knife (Chhuri). On hue and cry raised by Sardar Maseeh Labha and Nazir Maseeh intervened and tried to separate Sardar Maseeh but they were pushed by Rashid Jaj and Faisal Maseeh. Sardar Maseeh fell on the ground and Heera Maseeh appellant ran away from the spot. The complainant alongwith Labha Maseeh and Nazir Maseeh took Sardar Maseeh to the hospital in a rickshaw. Four accused/respondents were named in the F.I.R., who were tried by the learned Magistrate Section 30 who vide his judgment, dated 29-4-1998 acquitted all the accused/respondents. The appellant/ complainant filed the instant appeal against their acquittal before this Court. Notice was issued only to Heera Maseeh because he only caused injuries to Sardar Masih.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the respondent is named in the F.I.R., specific role is attributed to him, that he caused three injuries on the person of the injured.

All the injuries were found serious in nature and one of them was on the left side of his chest. He submits that the learned trial Court was wrong in acquitting the respondents, that the ocular account was corroborated by medical evidence.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that no eye-witness was present at the spot, that learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. He submits that four persons were produced to prove their defence, that in fact occurrence had taken place in the house of Sardar Maseeh where some of his near relatives caused him injuries and the injured was taken to the hospital by Jan Maseeh, that no eye-witness was present there, that the respondent was falsely implicated in this case.

6. On the other hand learned State Counsel submits that it was the respondent who had caused serious injuries on the person of appellant. He criticised the judgment of the learned Magistrate and submits that he was wrong in acquitting the respondents.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record.

Prosecution has produced as many as six witnesses including Doctor Bilal Ahmad who conducted the medical examination on the person of Sardar Maseeh on the same day. It was respondent who while armed with knife (Chhuri) caused three injuries which are incised wounds on the person of Sardar Maseeh. Injury No,1 was on the left lower buttock, injury No,2 was an incised wound on the right buttock while injury No,3 was an incised wound on the left side of chest of injured P.W.

Measuring 4.5 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. And omentum was coming out the wound. Doctor had declared injuries Nos.1 and 2 Ghair Jaifah Badhia which falls under section 337-E(ii) and as far as injury No,3 is-concerned that was declared as Jaifah which falls under section 337-D, P.P.C. The star-witness in this case is Sardar Maseeh who had appeared before the trial Court. He had fully implicated the respondent in this case. Ocular account is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. As far as other respondents are concerned no overt act is attributed to them. I am surprised to see the judgment which has been passed in favour of the respondent on flimsy grounds. It was a broad daylight occurrence. There was no mitigating circumstance even, in favour of the present respondent. It was good luck of Sardar Maseeh that he did not meet his death in this case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that prosecution has fully proved its case against the respondent Heera Maseeh beyond any shadow of doubt and to its hilt.

In this view of the matter, first of all I convict respondent under section 324, P.P.C. And sentence him to undergo 10 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,20,000 or in default six months' R.I. He is also directed to pay compensation Rs,30.000 to the appellant injured under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Failing which he shall have to undergo six months' S.I. He is also liable under section 337-E(ii) which is punishable under section 337-F(ii) and he is sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. As Tazir with further direction to pay Daman in the sum of Rs,25,000 which will be payable to the appellant injured P.W. Prosecution has also proved its case against the respondent under section 337-F, P.P.C. Because according to the Doctor, injury No,3 on the person of appellant Sardar Maseeh falls under section 337-C, P.P.C.

Which is punishable under section 337-D. Respondent is also awarded sentence under section 337- D, P.P.C. To undergo 7 years' R.I. And 1/3rd of Diyat as required under the law. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is also granted to the respondent. With these observations this appeal is accepted. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.