' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Revision No,1037 of 2005 filed by Muhammad Yousaf Khan convict against his conviction and sentence and Criminal Revision No,932 of 2003 filed by Muhammad Aslam Khan complainant seeking enhancement of sentence as both have arisen out of the same case F.I.R. No,38 of 2000 of Police Station Musa Khel and judgment dated 7-7-2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Mianwali whereby Muhammad Yousaf Khan was convicted and sentenced and judgment dated 13-10-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali through which the appeal filed by Muhammad Yousaf Khan was disposed of with reduction in the sentence and Criminal Revision filed by Muhammad Aslam seeking enhancement of sentence has been dismissed.
2. Briefly the prosecution story is that on the statement of Muhammad Aslam Khan complainant/petitioner, F.I.R. Was registered at Police Station Musa Khel on 23-3-2000 at about 8- 15 a.m. According to the complainant he was a farmer and on 22-3-2000 after the Maghrab prayer he along with his sons Muhammad Akbar and Fateh Khan was present at their "Borang". In the meanwhile Muhammad Yousaf armed with .12 bore gun along with Imran Khan armed with fire- arm came at the spot. Muhammad Yousaf raised a Lalkara that they had come to take the revenge of causing injury to his wife. Muhammad Akbar stopped forward and Muhammad Yousaf fired hitting Akbar in front of his abdomen and other parts of the body who fell down and the appellant and his co-accused succeeded in running away. The injured was taken to Civil Hospital in an unconscious condition where he was admitted and subsequently case was got registered.
3. During investigation Muhammad Yousaf Khan petitioner was arrested. He led to the recovery of .12 bore gun while his co-accused Imran Khan was found innocent and placed in Column No,2 of the challan. Copies were supplied to the petitioner/convict and charge was framed against him who denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove the ocular account produced Muhammad Aslam complainant/father of Muhammad Akbar as P.W.1 while Muhammad Akbar injured appeared as P.W.2. Dr. Muhammad Rafiq who had medically examined the victim appeared as P.W.5 while the investigation had been conducted by Muhammad Ali A.S.-I.
Who subsequently died.
4. The petitioner Muhammad Yousaf Khan in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations. However, he did not produce any evidence. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner Muhammad Yousaf Khan as under:--
(i) seven years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs,200,000 with further simple imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine under section 324, P.P.C.;
(ii) three years' rigorous imprisonment with Arsh of Rs,83,875 under section 337-D, P.P.C.;
(iii) three years' rigorous imprisonment with Daman of Rs,10,000 under section 337-F(V), P.P.C.
' Against the said judgment of conviction the petitioner Muhammad Yousaf Khan filed an appeal and Criminal Revision for enhancement of sentence was filed by Muhammad Aslam Khan complainant. Vide judgment dated 13-10-2005, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali dismissed the Criminal Revision filed by the complainant and also maintained the conviction in the appeal filed by Muhammad Yousaf Khan petitioner but has reduced the sentence under section 324, P.P.C. From seven years to four years' R.I. And also directed for running of the sentences concurrently.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Muhammad Yousaf Khan contends that the prosecution evidence was doubtful but in spite of that the petitioner has been convicted. It is also contended that the quantum of the amount of Arsh and Daman is too much and he is not in a position to pay the same, which amount may be reduced.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Muhammad Aslam Khan petitioner in Criminal Revision No,932 of 2005 contends that the sentence has been wrongly reduced by the learned Appellate Court and it has been wrongly held that the sentence will run concurrently. It is also contended that maximum sentence could have been awarded to the convict Muhammad Yousaf Khan.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revision petitions. Muhammad Akbar injured appeared as P.W.2 and supported the story and his presence at the spot was not at all doubtful was had received the injuries and there was no chance of false implication of the petitioner Muhammad Yousaf Khan in the present case. It was a day-light occurrence and the convict being resident of the same locality, there was no question of misidentity of the convict. The father of the victim has fully supported the prosecution case and both the Courts below after considering the ocular account which is fully supported by the medical evidence have rightly convicted the petitioner Muhammad Yousaf Khan as Muhammad Akbar had received fire-arm injuries and the number of injuries have been received by him and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted him for each injury and I do not find any reason for setting aside the conviction in revisional jurisdiction. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant (petitioner in Criminal Revision No,932 of 2005) is concerned, for enhancement of the sentences firstly the second revision is not maintainable as he had already exhausted the said remedy by filing a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which has been dismissed.
Even otherwise the occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 2000 and the convict had been facing the agony of the trial for the last about five years when the sentence was reduced from seven years' R.I. To four years' R.I.; under section 324, P.P.C. Even otherwise only a single shot had been fired by the convict and he has been convicted and sentenced for each injury received by the victim, with the direction to make the payment of Arsh and Daman as provided for the offences in which he has been convicted. In the above circumstances I do not find any reason for interference in the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge C through which he has reduced the sentence under section 324, P.P.C. From seven years to four years and directed for running of the sentences concurrently. Even otherwise the victim was found in perfect condition by the learned Appellate Court. Both the learned counsel for the convict Muhammad Yousaf Khan and Muhammad Aslam Khan complainant have failed to point out any jurisdictional defect or any misreading or non-reading of material evidence on the part of the Courts below in arriving at a wrong decision. Hence both these Criminal Revisions Nos.1037 of 2005 and 932 of 2005 are dismissed in limine.