' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--Muhammad Khalid, Muhammad Iqbal and Nazar Hussain appellants were convicted for an offence under section 343, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 29-6-2002 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each and a fine of Rs.7,000 each or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Half of the fine, if realized, was ordered to be paid to Israr Ahmad Raza complainant by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The appellants were also convicted by the learned trial Court for an offence under section 337-L (2), P.P.C. And were ordered to pay Daman of Rs.3,000 each to the above mentioned complainant. The benefit under section 382-B Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellants. The appellants have challenged their convictions and sentences before this Court through Criminal Appeal No.1102 of 2002 and Israr Ahmad Raza complainant has filed Criminal Revision No.760 of 2002 before this Court seeking enhancement of the sentences passed by the learned trial Court against the convicts appellants. The learned counsel for the convicts-appellants has accepted notice of this revision petition on behalf of the convicts-appellants, the private respondents therein.
Some co-accused of the appellants had been acquitted by the learned trial Court and Criminal Appeal No.1458 of 2002 filed by the complainant against their acquittal has already been summarily dismissed by this Court under section 421, Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 8-9-2003. I have heard Criminal Appeal No.1102 of 2002 and Criminal Revision No.760 of 2002 together and I propose to decide the same together through the present consolidated judgment.
2. The prosecution's allegation against the appellant is that at 9-00 a.m. On 21-9-1996 they had confined Israr Ahmad Raza complainant at the local Police Station and then at a police quarter and had tortured him during his custody lasting for three days. According to the prosecution the appellants had committed the said offences in order to pressurize the complainant to settle a dispute over some property with some private party. It was with great difficulty and after filing various applications and petitions before various fora that the complainant had managed to get F.I.R. No. 94 registered at Police Station City, Toba Tek Singh on 7-4-1997 for offences under sections 365/ 148/149, P.P.C. In respect of the above mentioned allegations. Upon completion of the investigation a challan was submitted before the learned trial Court and after holding a full dressed trial the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant's co-' accused but convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal and the connected revision petition before this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. It has half-heartedly been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt but during the course of his arguments he has mainly stressed for reduction of the appellant's sentences in view of some peculiar circumstances of this case. As against that the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the State have maintained that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, the convictions and sentences of the appellants do not warrant any interference by this Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case with their assistance it has straightaway been observed that the allegations leveled by the prosecution against the appellants had not only been supported by the alleged victim namely Israr Ahmad Raza complainant (P.W.1) but the same had also been amply corroborated by the statements of as many as three eyewitnesses namly Muhammad Irfan (P.W.2), Hafiz Muhammad Ismail (P. W.4) and Iqrar Ahmad (P.W.5). The statements made by the complainant arid the other eyewitnesses had received full support from the medical evidence provided by Dr. Abdul Raheem (P.W.3). It may be true that the above mentioned three eyewitnesses had been found by the learned trial. Court to be unreliable vis-a-vis the acquitted co-accused of the appellants but they had been quite consistent in their statements while implicating the present appellants and the learned trial Court had recorded cogent A reasons for believing the said eyewitnesses qua the appellants. It is for these reasons that the learned counsel for the appellants has not seriously challenged the convictions of the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court and I have found such lack of seriousness on his part vis-a-vis convictions of the appellants to be quite justified in the circumstances of this case.
5. I have anxiously attended to the question of the sentences passed by the learned trial Court against the appellants and in this context it has been noticed that although the allegations levelled against the appellants regarding confinement of a citizen at a police station and thereafter in a police quarter and application of torture upon such citizen was quite serious in itself yet .I have not been able to ignore the fact that the occurrence in this case had taken place about eight years ago and during all this while the appellants have been suffering the agony and anguish of a protracted trial and then the present appeal and the connected revision B petition. For keeping the complainant in wrongful confinement for three days and for causing three minor contusions to him the appellants have been facing their prosecution in that regard for about eight years. In that backdrop I have found it necessary and just to strike a balance between the attribution against the appellants and the retribution deserved by the appellants at this stage.
6. For what has been discussed above Criminal Appeal No.1102 of 2002 is dismissed to the extent of the convictions of the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court for offences under section 343/34, P.P.C. And 337-L (2), P.P.C. But the sentences of imprisonment passed by the learnd trial Court against the appellants for an offence under section 343, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. Are reduced to those till the rising of this Court today. The sentences of fine passed against the appellants by the learned trial Court for the said offence are, however, enhanced to Rs.25,000 each or in default of payment thereof the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The entire fine, if realized, shall be paid to Israr Ahmad Raza complainant by way of compensation under section 544-A Cr.P.C. The sentences of the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court for an offence under section 337-L (2), P.P.C. Are, however, upheld and maintained. The appellants are allowed a period of one month from today to deposit the requisite fine and Daman before the learned trial Court failing which they shall be arrested and shall then be dealt with in accordance with law. The appellants are present before this Court today on bail. In case of the necessary deposit of the requisite fine and Daman by the appellants within the stipulated period their bail bonds and sureties shall stand discharged.
7. Criminal Appeal No.1102 of 2002 and Criminal Revision No.760 of 2002 are disposed of in the above mentioned terms.