18/05/2026
گواہوں کے بیانات میں اگر معمولی تضادات یا معمولی improvements ہو تو انہیں نظرانداز کیا جانا چاہیے، اور صرف اہم یا بنیادی تضادات کو ہی قابلِ غور سمجھا جائے گا۔
🔴 2017 P Cr. L J 1550 [Balochistan]
Before Zaheer-ud-Din Kakar, J
YASIN and 3 others---Petitioners
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 43 of 2016, decided on 17th May, 2017.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii) & 34--- Shajjaj-i-madihah, damiyah, badi'ah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Prosecution case was that accused-appellants while armed with weapon and knives assaulted at the complainant and his brother, resultantly, they sustained injuries---Ocular account was furnished by the witnesses including complainant and injured---Said witnesses attributed specific role to the accused-appellants---In spite of lengthy cross-examination of the eyewitnesses, nothing beneficial could be elicited rendering any help to the case of accused-appellants---Medical evidence furnished by the Medical Officer, who medically examined the injured supported the ocular account---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused-appellants to the hilt through cogent, coherent, trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence---Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii) & 34--- Shajjaj-i-madihah, damiyah, badi'ah, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Ocular and medical evidence---Scope---Where there was forthright and convincing eye account same would be preferred as compared to that of medical evidence.
Sarfaraz v. The State 2000 SCMR 1758 and Muhammad Hanif v. State PLD 1993 SC 895 rel.
(c) Criminal trial---
----Occular version/medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence could not determine question of guilt or innocence but ocular version was required to be taken into consideration at first instance for the purpose.
Machia v. State PLD 1976 SC 695 rel.
(d) Criminal trial---
----Witness---Minor contradictions or improvements in the statements of witnesses---Effect---Minor contradictions or improvements in the statements of witnesses were to be overlooked and only material contradictions were to be considered.
Ranjha v. The State 2007 SCMR 455 rel.
(e) Criminal Procedure Code (XLV of 1898)---
----S. 439---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction if findings of lower forum were shown patently illegal, without jurisdiction or the result of bare misreading and non-reading of material evidence, based on conjectures, presumptions or erroneous assumption.
Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh PLD 2003 SC 315 rel.
Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioners.
Mushtaq Anjum for the Complainant.
Yahya Baloch, DPG for the State.
Date of hearing: 28th April, 2017.
JUDGMENT
ZAHEER-UD-DIN KAKAR, J.---Through this Revision Petition, the petitioners assailed the concurrent judgments dated 03.11.2015 and 25.3.2016, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Musakhail "the trial Court" and Sessions Judge, Musakhail at Loralai "the appellate Court" respectively, whereby the former has convicted the petitioners as under:
i. Under sections 337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. to suffer RI for two years.
ii. Under section 337-F(i)/34, P.P.C. to suffer RI for one month and
iii. Under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. to suffer RI for two years and to pay Daman in the sum of Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand only) by each accused to each injured persons Amir and Roz Muhammad.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In case of non-payment of Daman convict shall be treated under section 337-Y(2), P.P.C.
While the latter, upheld the judgment of the trial Court with following modification in the quantum of sentence:
i. Sentence of two (02) years' RI each awarded to accused/appellants under section 337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. is reduced to one (01) year RI each.
ii. Sentence of one (01) month's RI each awarded to accused/appellants under section 337-F(i)/34, P.P.C. shall remain intact.
iii. Sentence of two (02) years' RI each awarded to accused/appellants is reduced to one (01) year's RI each.
The quantum of Daman of Rs.5000/- each as directed by the trial Court and its treating under section 337-Y(2), P.P.C. to remain intact with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The sentences were also ordered to run concurrently.
2. Precisely stated facts of the prosecution case are that, on 26.10.2014 complainant Amir Khan got registered a case at Police Station Saddar Musakhail with the allegations therein that on the same date at 3.00 p.m. when he and his brother Roz Muhammad were taking tea in Sada Bahar Hotel, situated at Thoi Sar Mor, accused persons Yasin, Khair Muhammad, Faiz Muhammad and Latif also came there, who after exchange of harsh words attacked upon his brother, out of whom accused Yasin, Khair Muhammad and Latif were having knives in their hands, while accused Faiz Muhammad was equipped with weapon and as such the accused persons caused knife blows to his brother. He further alleged that he attempted to save his brother from the clutches of the accused persons, but the accused Khair Muhammad also caused knife blow at his chest, while his right wrist was also injured and, thereafter, fled away from the scene of occurrence. The complainant stated that Muhammad Yousaf and Miro are the eye-witnesses of the incident and as such requested for taking legal action against the accused persons.
3. On the stated allegations, charge was framed and read over to the convicts/petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove accusation, the prosecution produced following eight witnesses:
PW-1 Ameer is injured/complainant of the case, who reiterated the contents of his Fard-e-Bayan Ex-P/1-A.
PW-2 Roz Muhammad injured of the case.
PW-3 Muhammad Yousaf, the eye-witness of the case.
PW-4 Meero is also an eye-witness of the case.
PW-5 Sobedar C/160, witness to recovery memo of Qamis of the injured persons Ex-P/5-A.
PW-6 Dr. Muhammad Nasir Khan, Medical Officer, conducted medical examination of the injured Roz Muhammad and found the following injuries on his person:
1. Wound on right side of head near ear 3" long, l cm wide, 1 cm deep, 5 stitches applied.
2. Wound on left forearm 2" long 1/2 wide skin deep, 4 stitches applied.
3. 2 wounds on left shoulder on back side, 1" long, l cm wide, 3 stitches applied.
4. Wound on left side of neck, 1 cm deep, 2 stitches applied.
5. Wound on right thigh, 3 inch long, 3 cm wide, 2 cm deep, 5 stitches applied.
6. Wound on right side of neck 1/2" long, 2 stitches applied.
7. Wound on right shoulder, 1" long, 1 cm deep, 3 stitches applied.
8. Wound on left hand finger, 1 stitch applied
Massive blood loss.
Nature of wounds grievous
Weapon used Sharp
He issued MLC No.292, which is Ex-P/5-A and identified his signature over the same. On the same date, he also examined the injured Ameer Khan and found the following injuries on his person.
1. Wound on left side of chest below left breast 1-1/2 inch long, 1 cm wide, 1 cm deep, 3 stitches applied.
2. Wound on left wrist, 6 inch long, 1 cm wide, 1 cm deep, 7 stitches applied.
Nature of wound s simple
Weapon used sharp
He issued MLC No.293, which is Ex-P/6-B and identified his signature over the same.
PW-7 Allah Diwaya SI/SHO (1st I.O.) conducted investigation, recorded statements of witnesses, arrested the accused Abdul Latif, recorded statements of injured persons, obtained medical certificates, after completion of investigation to the extent of accused Abdul Latif, submitted challan Ex-P/7-A, produced site map as Ex-P/7-B, submitted incomplete challan Ex-P/7-C, supplementary challan Ex-P/7-D.
PW-8 IP Riaz Ahmed, after obtaining pre-arrest bail by the accused persons Faiz Muhammad, Yasin and Khair Muhammad, conducted investigation and submitted challan Ex P/8-A.
4. The petitioners were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein they once again denied the prosecution allegations, however, did not opt to make statement on oath nor produced evidence in defence. On conclusion of the trial and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as mentioned above. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed with modification in the quantum of sentence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the Courts below have failed to consider the material aspect of the case and have misread the evidence, which is violative of law and has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the evidence produced by the prosecution is suffered from contradictions/improvements on material facts and not corroborated by any independent piece of evidence, which creates a reasonable doubt. Finally, he prayed for setting aside both the judgments of Courts below.
6. Conversely, the learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for complainant contended that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant to the hilt through cogent, coherent, trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence; that defence has failed to shatter the credible testimony of the prosecution; hence the revision is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioners and for the State, scrutinized the entire prosecution evidence and perused the judgments of the trial as well as the appellate Courts. After having gone through the entire evidence, I am of the view that prosecution has established the guilt to the hilt by producing forthright and convincing evidence. In this regard, the statements of complainant Ameer PW-1, Roz Muhammad injured PW-2, Muhammad Yousaf PW-3 and Meero PW-4 can be referred. It is worth mentioning that the incident was witnessed by the PWs-3 and 4, by whom specific role of assaulting has been attributed to the petitioners. In-spite of lengthy and exhaustive cross-examination of the eye-witnesses, nothing beneficial could be elicited rendering any help to the case of petitioners. I have not been persuaded to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ocular version could not be substantiated by any corroboratory material being devoid of merit for the simple reasons that ocular version finds full support from the medical evidence as furnished by Dr. Muhammad Nasir Khan, who examined the injured and issued certificates Ex-P/5-A and Ex-P/6-B. Even otherwise, it is well settled by now that if there is forthright and convincing eye account that will be preferred as compared to that of medical evidence. In this regard, I am fortified by the dictum laid down in the cases of Sarfaraz v. The State, (2000 SCMR 1758) and Muhammad Hanif v. State, (PLD 1993 SC 895). Furthermore, it is not the medical evidence to determine the question of guilt or innocence, but it is ocular version, which is required to be taken into consideration at first instance. In this regard, reference can be made to Machia v. State, (PLD 1976 SC 695).
8. It is worth mentioning that the learned counsel for the petitioners emphasizes on the contradictions which, according to him, escaped the notice of the trial court but failed to point out any of them. Even otherwise, it is a settled principle of law that minor contradictions or improvements in the statements of witnesses are to be overlooked and only material contradictions are to be considered. In this regard, we may place reliance on a case of Ranjha v. The State {2007 SCMR 455}, wherein it has been held that:
"The ocular testimony of quite independent witnesses duly supported by the medical evidence, the recovery of empties from the spot, the post-mortem report of the two deceased and prompt lodging of FIR without any deliberation and exaggeration as well as the attending circumstances was found truthful and confidence-inspiring therefore, the minor discrepancy and contradiction pointed out in the statement of witnesses being immaterial would be of no significance."
9. Both the trial as well as appellate Courts have rightly appreciated the evidence in its true prospective and convicted the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not find out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments rendered by both the Courts below, which may warrant interference in revision jurisdiction of this Court.
10. Further the scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited, in which the Court cannot set aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by a Court of competent jurisdiction nor it can upset the same even if on appreciation of evidence, a different view can be formed unless these findings are shown patently illegal, without jurisdiction or the result of bare misreading and non-reading of material evidence, based on conjectural presumptions or erroneous assumption. Reference, in this regard can be made to case titled Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh {PLD 2003 SC 315}.
11. In view of the above discussion, the instant petition, being meritless, is dismissed. The petitioners were released on bail vide its Court order dated 06.4.2016 in C.M.A. No. 126/2016, the same is hereby recalled.
JK/80/Bal. Revision dismissed.
