' RUSTAM ALI MALIK, J.-This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal titled Chiragh Din, etc. v. The State (Crl. Appeal No,27 of 2001) and Criminal Revision titled Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Shafique, etc. (Crl. Rev. No,36 of 2001)
2. Chiragh Din and Muhammad Shafique along with their co-accused were involved in case F.I.R.
No,331/93 registered on 3-6-1993 in Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura under sections 324, 334, 337-H(ii) & 34, P.P.C. Which was registered on the complaint of Muhammad Sharif son of Jamal Din.
During the course of occurrence Nazir Ahmad, P.W. Had received injuries at the hands of the accused persons. The motive for the occurrence was stated to be a dispute concerning a piece of land which Nazir Ahmad had obtained from Shabbir. The injured was taken to the Hospital by his brother i.e, the complainant. Later, he was referred to Mayo Hospital, Lahore.
3. After investigation the challan was submitted against the accused. It may be mentioned here that during the investigation Nawaz and Shafique accused were found guilty and were challaned whereas the remaining four accused namely- Rafique, Rehmat Ali, Munawwar and Chiragh were found innocent. One of the accused namely Muhammad Nawaz was murdered on 7-5-1999. The learned trial Court summoned all the accused except Rehmat Ali son of Nizam Din as he had died in the meanwhile. The charge was framed against the four accused namely Muhammad Afzal, Munawwar, Chiragh Din and Muhammad Shafique. The accused pleaded not guilty and the prosecution was asked to produce its evidence.
5. The prosecution examined in this case Muhammad Sharif, complainant as P.W.1. Nazir Ahmad, the injured P.W. Was examined as P.W.2 whereas Muhammad Rafi was examined as P.W.3. Dr. Mudassar Ahmad appeared in the witness-box. As P.W.4 and he also proved the medico-legal report Exh.P.D. Muhammad Sharif, I.O. Was examined as P.W. 5 whereas Muhammad Anwar, A.S-I.
Appeared as P.W.6.
6. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the four accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances.
However, the accused did not make statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
7. On the conclusion of trial, Muhammad Shafique, Muhammad Afzal and Chiragh Din were convicted under sections 334 and 337-H(ii), P.P.C. The role of Muhammad Shafique and Muhammad Afzal was considered as more grievous and they were awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. They were also directed to pay half of Diyat to the injured in equal shares. Chiragh Din accused was awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year. Munawwar son of Fateh Muhammad accused was however acquitted.
8. Aggrieved of the judgment of the learned trial Court, dated 19-12-2000 as aforesaid, Chiragh Din and Muhammad Shafique have come up in appeal.
9. For enhancement of sentence awarded to Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Shafique and Chiragh Din, Muhammad Sharif complainant filed a revision petition (Crl. Rev. No,36 of 2001) and both these matters are being disposed of through this judgment. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of these matters, a compromise was effected between Muhammad Afzal accused/convict and Muhammad Sharif, complainant and hence the name of Muhammad Afzal was deleted from the revision petition vide order, dated 5-4-2002.
10. I have carefully considered the A arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. The learned trial Court appears to have discussed in detail the prosecution evidence and has given sound reasoning in its judgment. At the time of arguments on this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants namely Chiragh Din and Muhammad Shafique stated that he will be satisfied in case benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is awarded to the appellants and if modification in that respect is effected in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the State did not object to the said modification. Hence, in the light of the statement of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is directed that Chiragh Din and Muhammad Shafique accused/appellants shall be given the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
11. With the above modification in the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by Chiragh Din and Muhammad Shafique accused is dismissed. However, as mentioned above they shall be allowed the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
12. So far as the revision petition filed by Muhammad Sharif complainant is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has failed to appear today. However with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3/accused, I have gone through the relevant record. It appears that in the light of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court had awarded appropriate sentence to respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e, Muhammad Shafique and Chiragh Din. There is hardly any justification for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused/ respondents Nos.2 and 3 by the learned trial Court and in this respect there is no justification for interference. Accordingly, the revision petition No,36 of 2001 titled Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Afzal, etc. Is also dismissed.