Facts

 In the case F.I.R. No.191 of 2001, dated 20-6-2001, recorded at Sadar Police Station,

Gojra, the petitioners were booked in respect of the offenses referred to in Sections 337-

A(i)/337-A(ii)/337-F(vi)/337-L(2)/148/149, P.P.C.

 The allegations levelled by the complainant are that they along with their co-accused

while armed with weapons forcibly took away Inam Ullah into their Haveli. Muhammad

Siddique co-accused snatched wallet and some documents from said Inam Ullah.

Muhammad Wasim petitioner inflicted a Sota blow to Inam Ullah Khan (P.W.4) which

he sustained on his right arm whereas, Jamila Bibi co-accused inflicted a Thapi blow on

his head whereupon he fell down. Muhammad Saleem co-accused inflicted hatchet blow

to Sultan which he sustained on his right ear, Muhammad Siddique inflicted Sota blow to

Sultan, Rafia Bibi gave Danda blow on his head. Nadeem caused Sota blow on the chest

of Ihsan Ullah Khan whereafter said Muhammad Nadeem inflicted Sota blow to Parveen

on her left arm and Muhammad Saddique gave a Danda blow to Muhammad Asif on his

chest.1

 After registration of the case usual investigation was regulated and finally report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. was forwarded by the Investigating Officer to the learned trail Court

 The learned trial court, trial was conducted and the petitioners were convicted and was

sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a total of Rs 10,000 each as

Daman. Whereas two co-accused of the petitioners namely Muhammad Siddique and

Muhammad Saleem were convicted under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. and were sentenced

till rising of the court. They are also orde3r to pay 2000 as Daman each.

1
Muhammad Nadeem v. the state, (2012)1502 Cr.LJ, 1-4(PAK.).
  However, two female co-accused of the petitioners, namely Jamila Bibi and Rafia Bibi,

have been acquitted of the charge by the learned trial court and the claimant has not

appealed against their acquittal.

 All four convicted convicts challenged their conviction and sentences by filing an appeal

before the experienced Additional Sessions Judge, Gojra, while the compliant filed a

petition for enhancement of sentence. After the learned Additional Sessions Judge

combined both matters, Gojra dismissed the petitioners' appeal.

 The petitioners requested an immediate appeal, while the petitioners' co-prosecution,

namely Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Siddique, did not want to contest their

prosecution and sentences before the Trial, and thus it has reached its finality.

 The petitioners' learned counsel argues there are clear inconsistencies between the eye

account and the scientific facts. The occurrence is the result of a sudden flare-up and

there is no premeditation as a disagreement over holding fare / Mela triggered the

occurrence. Self-inflicted injuries.

 On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General supported by the learned

plaintiff counsel submits that the aggressors were Inam Ullah Khan P.W.4/injured person

showing that the petitioners were the. Doctor's statement is registered, and whether it was

put to the accused in their statements pursuant to section 342, Cr. P.C.2

Issues

 Section 337f is applied to the cases where bone is not dislocated?

 Does there any inconsistence in the evidences?

 The petition for enhancement of punishment is valid or not?

2
Muhammad Nadeem v. the state, (2012)1502 Cr.LJ, 1-4(PAK.).
Judgment.
It has been observed that to prove its case the prosecution had investigated as many as eleven

witnesses had supplied the ocular account of this trial. During their evidence before the learned

trial court they all remained consistent regarding role attributed to the petitioners in the

occurrence, weapon of offence used during the incident, injuries inflicted on the bodies of

victims They have been subject to extensive defense cross-examination, but nothing detrimental

to the prosecution can be learned. The learned counsel for the plaintiff identified them as

interested witnesses, but the law is quite settled on the point that the evidence submitted by the

witnesses involved can be accepted by the courts if it is sufficient for the facts and circumstances

of the case and is supported by the other evidence. There is nothing on record that record of this

case to disbelieve their evidence. For this case the scientific evidence has a crucial impact as it

was the source of the conviction. The medical evidence was provided by Dr. Anwar-ul-Haq

(P.W.1) who categorically stated in his declaration that there were as many as fifteen injuries on

the persons of the injured P.W.s. The forensic evidence borne out all the injuries related to the

petitioners.3

The petitioners cannot wriggle against the injuries caused by them to the aforementioned victims

merely on the technical grounds of non-dislocation of the bone from the sentences handed down

to them by the learned trial court. The doctor had also thoroughly described each and every

injury and the arms that caused the same. Also the record of this case indicates the petitioners

were previously non-convicted. Nothing has been reported by the prosecutor to demonstrate the

petitioners' participation in any criminal case to find them hardened or previously convicted

dangerous criminals, and therefore their case is protected by section 337-N(2), P.P.C. The

rigorous three-year imprisonment granted to both petitioners under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. and
3
Muhammad Nadeem v. the state, (2012)1502 Cr.LJ, 1-4(PAK.).
the stringent two-year imprisonment granted to Muhammad Waseem petitioner under section

337-A(ii), P.P.C. by the learned court of appeal and upheld by the learned court of appeal is

contrary to the provisions of section 337-N, P.P.C. and hence the same is set aside. However, the

conviction regarding Daman's payment is upheld and retained against both the petitioners who

are payable to the victims as stated in the judgment of the learned trial court. The complainant

Muhammad Waseem is also liable to pay 1/5th of Diyat as Arsh Petitioners are directed to

deposit the above said amount in the learned trial court within one month or in default of

payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.4

Set legal principle

The set legal principle in this case is regarding section 337-f and 337-N. this case discuss these

two sections from each angle and come to an end with a legal principle. Section 337-f (vi) of

Pakistan Penal code says that Whoever by doing any act with the intention of causing hurt to any

person, or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person, causes" munaqqilah

to any person, shall be liable to daman and may also be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to seven years as ta'zir. In the above case there is no

dislocation of a bone but court held the principle that the one cannot wriggle against the injuries

caused by them to the victims merely on the legal grounds of non-dislocation of the bone from

the sentences handed down to them by the learned trial court. The doctor in this case had also

thoroughly described each and every injury and the arms that caused the same.

Now moving towards second legal principle in regarding section 337-N (2) of PPC where

compliant filed revision petition for enhancement of punishment. Section 337-N(2) of Pakistan

Penal Code says that Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, in all cases of hurt, the
4
Muhammad Nadeem v. the state, (2012)1502 Cr.LJ, 1-4(PAK.).
Court may, having regard to the kind of hurt caused by him, in addition to payment of arsh,

award ta'zir to an offender who is a previous convict, habitual or hardened, desperate or

dangerous criminal.5 But in this instant case convict is not previously convicted or no previous

criminal record of convict is reported so court set a legal principle that for the activation of

section 337-N (2) the convict must have any criminal record or he must be dangerous for the

society and if the prosecution is fail to maintain or unable to give any record of convict of his

criminal background than court will not apply section 337-N of PPC. All the cases of hurt where

court has discretion or where court thinks that hurt is of nature that they must give additional

punishment of payment of arsh and ta’zir the convict must be habitual and a dangerous criminal.

Offence has been committed by him in the name or on the pretext of honor and in the case of

such an offender the sentence of imprisonment as Ta’zir is not to be less than one-third of the

maximum imprisonment provided for the hurt caused.

Critical analysis

In all cases of harm provided for in Chapter XVI, P.P.C., the normal punishment to be imposed

on an offender is payment of Arsh or Daman and the optional additional punishment of

imprisonment as provided for by Tazir for the offense in question can only be imposed on an

offender if he is a previous convict, a habitual, hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, or if

the offense has been committed by him In the name or on the basis of honor and in the case of

such an individual, the imprisonment term as Tazir shall not be less than one third of the actual

imprisonment for the injury incurred. But still there is loophole in interpretation of this section.

This case is unable to give clear meaning of this section either this section has overriding power

or not.

5
Pakistan penal code, S 337(N), No 45 of 1860.