1. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant party and the accused party are related to each other and were residing within one and same compound. On 29-8-1995 a donkey of the complainant party damaged the crop of appellant Ali Bux, therefore he came and made complaint before the complainant. The appellants abused the complainant on which the complainant advised him to take the donkey to cattle-pond but the appellants threatened him of dire consequences. Then he went and brought other appellants, out of them appellants Wazeer and Shareef had hatchets, appellant Wakeel had Lathi and other Appellants had guns. The appellant Ali Bux instigated the other appellants not to spare the complainant on which the appellant Muhammad Yousif fired a shot from his gun which hit Mst. Namrakhi. He also fired another shot which hit Ghulam Mustafa. All Bux fired with his gun which hit the complainant. The appellant Wazeer caused hatchet injuries to Faiz Muhammad and Shareef whereas appellant Shafi Muhammad and Wakeel caused lathi blows to Faiz Muhammad. They raised cries on which several persons attracted and the appellants went to their houses. The complainant then went to Police Station and lodged the report. The police after usual investigation challaned the appellants in the Court of law.
2. The learned IInd additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad tried the Appellants, acquitted accused Fareed, convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 324, 337A(i)(ii) and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment of various terms of imprisonment and fine with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. under the impugned judgment dated 23-11-1998.
3. I have heard the advocate for the appellants, A.A.-G. for the State and perused the record of this case very carefully.
4. In order to prove the case the prosecution examined complainant Muhammad Alim, P.W.2 injured Faiz Muhammad, P.W.3 Injured Shafi Muhammad and P.W.4 injured Ghulam Mustafa. They gave same details of the incident as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment therefore need not to be repeated.
5. The learned Advocate for the appellants has challenged their statements on the ground that the injuries assigned to Mst. Namrakhi was caused with fire arm shot but the medical officer did not find injury caused by fire arm weapon, therefore, the evidence is unreliable. No doubt the witnesses deposed that Mst. Namrakhi received fire arm injury but that has not been supported by the medical officer, as he did not find any injury caused by fire-arm weapon. However, with regard to the injuries caused to other P.Ws. the Medical Officer has fully supported the prosecution case and corroborated the evidence of witnesses under which the appellants have been assigned various specific roles of causing such injuries to the witnesses. The learned Advocate for the appellants could not point out any other discrepancy in the oral evidence. The parties are related to each other, residing within the same compound but the incident took place on a very minor affair, therefore it had taken place in heat of passion and temper. There is no reason that the P.Ws. have falsely involved the appellants in the case therefore, the ocular testimony is confidence inspiring and I do not find any reason to disbelieve the same.
6. As regards the punishment I have already observed that the parties are closely related to each other, the incident occurred on a very minor dispute in a heat of passion, therefore, some steps are to be taken towards the reformation of the appellants.
7. One of the concept of punishment is also reformation. The option between reformation and punishment is emerous one and it would require judicial application of mind keeping in view the goal of providing justice to the victim, society and offender within the framework of law. Keeping in view the basic principle of punishment the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 was promulgated by which the benefit of probation can be extended to the offenders. The said Ordinance shifts emphasis from deterrence to reformation and from crime to the criminals in accordance with the modern out look of the punishment. The key note of . the Ordinance is reformation and rehabilitation. Keeping in view the present condition of Jail where the offenders instead of reforming themselves, come out like hardened criminals, therefore, it is not conducive for the society to absorbed such type of persons after serving out, the sentence. The offences for which the appellants have been convicted are not coming within the debarring provisions of Section 5 of Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960. As such the appellants can be sent on probation so that they may reform themselves while remaining within the society.
8. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and protracted trial of 11 years it is expedient in the interest of justice that while maintaining the conviction and sentence, instead of sentencing the appellants at once a Probation Order is required to be passed.
9. Above are the reasons of my short order dated 11-9-2006 by which I had disposed of the appeal in the following manner: For reasons to be recorded separately the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants are maintained but instead of sentencing the offenders at once it is expedient in the interest of justice that the appellants be sent on probation for a period of 3 years on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 each and execution of required bond as provided under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960. The offence which the appellants have committed, does not come within the barring clause of Section 5 of the said Ordinance. All the required documents should be executed before the trial Court. After execution of such documents the trial Court shall hand over the custody of the appellants to the Probation Officer as required under the said Ordinance. The applicants are directed to appear before the trial Court on 18-9-2006 till then they are allowed to