SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BUKHARI, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.1991, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, whereby appellants were convicted under section 148, PPC and sentenced to suffer two years R.I. Each. Pehlwan, Dost Muhammad, Elahi Bakhsh, appellants were also suffer six months R.I. Each, whereas, Rasool Bakhsh appellant was convicted under section 324, PPC and sentenced to suffer one year's R.I. All the sentences were to run concurrently. The appellants were given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Khan Muhammad, complainant, stated before police on 10.3.1989, at 5:15 p.m. That complainant and Dost Muhammad alias Dossu, accused owned land in a joint hata in village Mehdi Shah and that there was a dispute regarding land measuring two kanals and 8 marlas. He further stated that on the day of occurrence (10.3.1989) at about 3:15 p.m., Allah Wasaya, Mushtaq Ahmad, Imam Bakhsh and Naseer Ahmad were throwing bricks on the land of the complainant when accused, Dost Muhammad @ Dossu, Pehlwan, Elahi Bakhsh @ Elahoo armed with sticks and Rasool Bakhsh and Ghulam Hussain armed with hatchets whereas Ameer Bakhsh armed with pistol reached the spot, Rasool Bakhsh gave hatchet blow to Imam Bakhsh on his left wrist whereas Ghulam Hussain gave hatchet blow to Allah Wasaya on his head and Elahi Bakhsh, Dost Muhammad and Pehlwan caused injuries to Mushtaq Ahmad and Naseer Ahmad with their sticks. Elahi Bakhsh @ Elahoo also gave a Soti blows to Allah Wasaya and Imam Bakhsh PWs while, Ameer Bakhsh made firing in the air with his pistol. On hearing alarm, Khan Muhammad complainant along with Akmal, Ghulam Nabi and Shabhir PWs reached the spot and rescued the injured PWs Allah Wasaya, Mushtaq Ahmad, Imam Bakhsh and Naseer Ahmad from the clutches of the accused. On his statement, case was registered against the accused under sections 307/324/148/149, PPC. However, later on Allah Wasaya died and section 302, PPC was accordingly added. After usual investigation accused were challaned.
3. The accused appeared before Trial Court and charge under sections 302/307/148/149, PPC framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, therefore, prosecution evidence was recorded. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all to prove its case. Thereafter, accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the allegations leveled against them by the prosecution and pleaded their innocence. After hearing the parties, learned Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them as stated above. However, Ghulam Hussain accused was declared Proclaimed Offender. During the pendency of appeal, Dost Muhammad @ Dossu expired, therefore, appeal to his extent has abated. Now Pehlwan, Rasool Bakhsh, Ameer Bakhsh and Elahi Bakhsh are the appellants in this appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the. Record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the impugned judgment and conviction on merits. He has prayed for only reduction of the sentence. He has argued that according to prosecution case, Dost Muhammad was principal accused but he (Dost Muhammad @ Dossu) has expired. He contended that the appellants have been facing the agony of trial since 10.3.1989 and that they remained in jail after registration of case and after conviction by Trial Court, therefore, it is a fit case for reduction of sentence awarded to the appellants. Learned counsel tor the State as well as the complainant too have no objection because conviction shall be maintained.
6. All the PWs have supported prosecution version. So prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. As such we find that learned counsel for the appellants has rightly not challenged the impugned judgment on merits.
7. We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties. This case was registered on 10.3.1989 and since then the appellants have been facing the agony of trial, lt seems that only Dost Muhammad appellant was responsible for this occurrence, as there was dispute of land in a joint Khata. However, he (Dost Muhammad) expired during the pendency of this appeal.
Perhaps this is the reason that complainant has withdrawn his revision petition filed for the enhancement of sentence. As such, we find it a fit case for reducing the sentence of the appellants.
The appellants remained in jail after registration of case and even after conviction. SO, in the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the sentence already undergone by them, ln our opinion this reduction in sentence would serve the ends of justice.
With the above modification, the appeal brought by the appellants, is dismissed.