JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, J. - Muhammad Rizwan and Muhammad Afsar petitioners have assailed the impugned judgments of the learned Magistrate Section 30, dated 26.7.2006 and of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 27.4.2007. Both the petitioners were tried by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Chakwal.
Muhammad Rizwan-petitioner was sentenced to pay a "Daman" of Rs. 25,000/- and also to undergo a sentence of three years' R.I. Muhammad -Afsar-petitioner was sentenced under Section 337-L(ii), P.P.C, to pay a "Daman" of Rs. 3000/- and also to undergo a sentence of six months as "Tazir". Both the petitioners were also bestowed with the benefit of Section 382-B. Cr.P.C.
2. The judgment of the learned Magistrate Section 30 was agitated before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal who vide his impugned judgment dated 27.4.2007 dismissed, the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. He also accepted the revision petition filed by the complainant and enhanced the sentence of Muhammad Rizwan from three years to seven years under Section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. And of Muhammad Afsar from six months to two years' R.I. Under Section 337-L(ii), P.P.C.
3. The present case is the outcome of case F.I.R. No. 15/2006, dated 14.2.2006 registered under Sections 337-L(ii), 337-F(vi) read with Section 34' P.P.C. At Police Station Dhudial, District Chakwal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned judgments of the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court are illegal, incorrect and improper that both the judgments lack the acute application of judicious mind on the part of both the learned lower Courts; that the present occurrence suddenly took place and not. In the manner as alleged by the witnesses in their evidence before the learned Trial Court. According to the F.I.R., both the petitioners when appeared at the scene of occurrence were apprehended and stated used a stone and brick; that. When the I.O. Visited the spot no such brick or stone was taken into possession by him; the recovery of brick was, planted afterwards at the instance of the complainant party on 3.3.2006; that the brick having been secured by the police was not blood-stained as admitted by PW-1 in his cross-examination; that when medically examined the complainant was bearing marks of three injuries on his person and this fact has been affirmed by PW- 3 Dr. Zafar Iqbal; that injury No. 1 resulted into the fracture of inner side of the right leg and it was muscles deep; that injury No. 3 was on the back of the chest; that the doctor has admitted that injury No. 1 allegedly causing fracture of the leg could be possible by a fall of the injured witness; that the fracture of the said injury by a throw of brick bat, is not possible; that the witnesses had been making divergent statements; that in the F.I.R. The role attributed to Mst. Mehr Jan was that she gave legs and fist blows to the injured PW whereas during the trial she was attributed infliction of # injuries with bricks and stones; that if she had given the stones and bricks then out of the three injuries no injury could be attributed to the petitioner; that the role attributed to the petitioner becomes highly doubtful; that in his cross- examination the injured PW re-iterated his stand of infliction of stone and brick injuries by Mst. Mehr Jan; that the injured h|is also admitted that he fell down when his back hit the 'ground; that the statement of the other witness does not give a corroborative support to the statement of the injured witness; that the photographed X-ray of the Injured has not been produced and the doctor who examined the X-rays has offered his opinion on record regarding the nature of injuries; that his evidence is of secondary nature which does not lay foundation for the purpose of conviction of the petitioner; that Muhammad Rizwan accused was also injured.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant relies 'upon Ashraf Ali Shah and 2 others v. The State and two others (1990 P.Cr.L.J 1813) and Amir Khan v. The State (PLD 1982 Peshawar 34). While referring to Section 439(5), Cr.P.C., he contends that the sentence was enhanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while exercising his powers under Section 439(4)(b), Cr.P.C. Further contends that second revision does not lie to this Court. Thus, the present revision is not maintainable. Lastly, he contends that revision petition having been filed by the petitioners is without substance and the same may be .Dismissed.
6. Learned Additional Prosecutor General has also opposed the revision petition having been filed by the 'petitioners. While relying upon the case repoint as Zulfiqar Ali Butt v. The State (1994 P.Cr.L.J.
2532) and the provisions of Section 439(4)(b), Cr.P.C, learned State counsel built up his atgument that second revision having been filed by the petitioners was incompetent.
7. The petitioners have challenged their conviction through the present revision petition: Their sentence was enhanced as a consequence of the revision petition having being filed by the complainant. Under the provisions of Section 439(4)(b), Cr.P.C., a second revision to the High Court is not competent. The petitioners have knocked wrong door of this Court. This Court feels handicapped to interfere in the judgment of the learned Trial Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 439, Cr.P.C. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed on this technical ground.