ANWAR SYED vs State S — 2021 PCrLJ 232 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ANWAR SYED VS State S. 334---Causing itlaf-i-udw---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Prosecution case was that the accused had caught left ear of complainant, cut it with a knife and fled away along with severed ear of the complainant---Perusal of record revealed that the injured/complainant was examined in support of the case of prosecution, wherein he had narrated the episode of the occurrence in his examination-in-chief---Complainant was extensively cross-examined but nothing substantial could be extracted from his mouth---Same was the case with the other eye-witness, who had also stood the test of cross-examination successfully---Both the witnesses had also stood consistent and no contradiction could be pointed out in the two statements on the material aspects of the case---Nothing was brought in evidence as to how the severed ear was retrieved from the accused---Medical Officer was examined, who had given the detail of injuries caused to the victim---Statement of Medical Officer had fully supported the version of complainant vis-a-vis cutting his left ear---Offence was completed with cutting of the ear which stand proved from the statements of eyewitnesses as well as Medical Officer and other corroboratory pieces of evidence---Defence objected that the entire hearing system had not been amputated, therefore, the same did not amount to an offence under S. 334, P.P.C., was difficult to be agreed with---Undoubtedly, the outer part of the organ of ear was a component of the entire system of hearing gifted to humankind by Almighty Allah, but for constitution of an offence of Itlaf-i-udw under S. 334, P.P.C., it was not required that the entire system of hearing was to be rooted out---As per S. 333, P.P.C., cutting of an ear, which would also mean the outer and visible part of the system of hearing, was sufficient to constitute offence under S. 334, P.P.C.---Accused could not be alleged as habitual or hardened, desperate or dangerous offender---Sentence of four years imprisonment awarded to him was not found justified, in circumstances---Appeal against conviction was partially allowed to the effect that the accused was found liable to payment of half of the amount of diyat as Arsh amounting to Rs. 10,27,968 and the sentence of imprisonment of four years awarded to him was set aside.

ANWAR SYED vs State S — 2021 PCrLJ 232 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PCRLJ