' JAVED IQBAL, J . --- The petitioners were tried under sections 337-A(i)(ii), P.P.C. And 452/34, P.P.C.
By learned Magistrate under section 30, Faisalabad, on conclusion whereof the petitioners were convicted under section 452/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For one year and fine of Rs,1,000 each and under section 337-A(i)(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(iv)/34, P.P.C. To undergo R.I. For 1-1/2 years each. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred which was dismissed, however, the conviction/sentence as mentioned hereinabove was reduced to that of already undergone with the further direction that Rs,5,000 each be paid by each of the petitioner as Arsh/Daman/compensation in equal proportions to the complainant and his wife namely Mst.
Sakina who sustained injuries during the occurrence and in case of default to suffer R.I. For 1-1/2 years. The petitioners assailed the said judgment by way of revision which has been dismissed vide judgment impugned.
2. The petitioners appeared in person and at the outset contended that plea of self-defence as agitated before the learned trial and appellate Courts was neither considered nor dilated upon in accordance with law which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that the complainant party was aggressor which aspect of the matter has been ignored.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated by the petitioners in the light of record of the case. The entire evidence has been thrashed out. The judgment, dated 8-9-2000 passed by learned Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad and judgment, dated 23-11-2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge have been perused carefully. The judgment impugned has also been perused. After having gone through the entire evidence we are of the view that plea of self- defence was neither agitated nor is available to the petitioners because after having careful appraisal of evidence the learned trial Court A concluded that attack was launched by the petitioners. The appellate Court concurred the said conclusion after having gone through the entire evidence. The conclusion drawn by the learned trial and appellate Courts is strictly in accordance with law. The learned appellate Court has already taken a lenient view for cogent reasons. No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out by the petitioners in the judgment impugned.
' We are, therefore, not inclined to grant leave and resultantly the petition is dismissed being meritless.