' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Muhammad Asif petitioner along with Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Yousaf (acquitted co-accused) faced trial in case F.I.R. No-204, registered at Police Station, Alipur.Chatha, on 8-7-2002, for offences under section 324/337-A(vi)/337-A(ii), P.P.C.
Before the learned Magistrate Section 30, Wazirabad, who vide his judgment dated 22-6-2004 while acquitting rest of the accused, convicted and sentenced Muhammad Asif petitioner as under:--- ' FOR CAUSING INJURIES TO SHABBIR HUSSAIN
(1) Under section 324, P.P.C. Seven years' R.I with fine of Rs,15,000 or in default one month's S.I.
(2) Under Section 337-A (vi), P.P.C.
' Five Years' R.I. With Arsh amounting to Rs,1,50,000.
' FOR CAUSING INJURIES TO SAJJAD HUSSAIN
(1) Under section 324, P.P.C.
Seven years' R.I. With fine of Rs,15,000 or in default one month's S.I.
(2) Under section 337-A (ii), P.P.C.
' Two Years' R.I. With Arsh amounting to Rs,15,000.
' Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended in favour of the petitioner and the sentences awarded under section 324 P.P.C. Were directed to run concurrently and the remaining sentences were to run consecutively.
2. Appeal filed against the above mentioned convictions and sentences. Awarded to the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wazirabad, vide judgment dated 4-12- 2006. Hence this revision petition.
3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner along with Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Yousaf in furtherance of their common intention launched murderous assault upon Sajjad Hussain and Shabbir Hussain and caused serious injuries to them with hatchet. The role attributed to Muhammad Hussain is of raising Lalkara while the role assigned to Muhammad Yousaf is of causing injuries with stick to the injured P.Ws.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this revision petition submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case and that injured P.W. Syed Shabbir Husssain Shah stated before the trial Court that he was given injuries from his backside so it was not possible for him to have seen the assailant; that the other injured P.W. Stated that Muhammad Asif gave him three injuries including the one on arm but the injury on the arm is not available in the Medico- legal Report; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 25-7-2002; that including remissions he had already undergone six years and six months sentence; and that in the facts and circumstances of the case he is entitled to acquittal.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Prosecutor-General of Punjab has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the judgments passed by both the Courts below.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by them. I have gone through the Medico-legal Report of both the injured P.Ws. i.e, Shabbir Hussain and Sajjad Hussain. The injuries on the person of Shabbir Hussain P.W. Are as under:--
(1) An incised wound 6. Cm x 3. Cm going deep with margin of bone exposed and brain matter coming out. The wound is on the back of head,
3. Cm away from left ear.
(2) An incised wound 7. Cm x 2. Cm going deep with margin of bone exposed and brain matter coming out. The wound is on the back of the head,
3. Cm away from injury No-1..
' The injuries received by Sajjad Hussain are as under :-
(1) An incised rounded wound consisting 8 c.m. x 4 c.m. Bone exposed covering 1/4 of right side of head.
(2) An incised wound 6. Cm x 1. Cm bone exposed on the upper side of left ear covering whole of left head.
(3) An incised wound 7. Cm x .1. Cm bone exposed on left side of head.
' The Medico-legal Report of Shabbir Hussain injured P.W. Shows that both the injuries are on the back of his head; the brain matter was coming out; he was in serious condition: his blood pressure A was not recordable and he was unconscious. The Medico-legal Report of Sajjad Hussain injured P.W. Shows that he received three injuries, two on the head and one on the ear with sharp-edged weapon. The petitioner was arrested and he got recovered hatchet.
' Both the injured eye-witnesses being star witnesses of the case have fully supported the prosecution case and had no animus or ill-will to falsely depose against the petitioner. There are concurrent findings of A the Courts below against the petitioner. In this revision petition no law point has been raised to warrant interference in both the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. I have further noted that even when the Investigating Officer tried to get the statement of Shabbir Hussain injured P.W. Recorded the doctor replied that he was not in a position to make statement, so he was in precarious condition at that time. The injuries received by both the injured P.Ws. And attributed to the petitioner fully attract the provisions of law under which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. Both the co-accused namely Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Yousaf were acquitted by the learned trial Court but their acquittal has no B bearing on the merits of the case and is of no avail to the petitioner as the Courts below have applied the principle of sifting grain from the chaff. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some of the sentences awarded to the petitioner were directed to run consecutively and prayed for direction that all the sentences may be ordered to run concurrently. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and direct that all the sentences would run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
7. This revision petition has no merit and the same with the above observations, stands dismissed.