' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment shall dispose of the following connected matters:--
(i) Criminal Revision No.944 of 2003 (State v. Abdul Salam etc.): ' Respondents-convicts in this revision petition, namely, Abdul Salam Alvi, Muhammad Ehsan Alvi, Muhammad Zaman Alvi, Asim Riaz and Muhammad Mubasher, filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 2003 (in Criminal Appeal No. 1258 of 2003) for suspension of their sentences and vide order, dated 30-9-2003 while dismissing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 2003, they, along with their co-convicts, were issued notices for enhancement of their sentences recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 30-6-2003 passed by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad (Mr. Muntaz Munawar Khan Niazi).
(iii) (sic)
(ii) Criminal Appeal No. 1258 of 2003 (Abdul Salam Alvi v. State): filed against the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants vide judgment, dated 30-6-2003 passed by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad (Mr. Muntaz Munawar Khan Niazi).
(v) Criminal Revision No. 1056 of 2004 (Sohail Alvi v. The State): filed for enhancement of convictions and sentences awarded to respondents namely, Abdul Salam Alvi, Muhammad Ehsan Alvi, Muhammad Zaman Alvi, Asim Riaz and Muhammad Mubasher, vide judgment, dated 30-6-2003 passed by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad (Mr. Muntaz Munawar Khan Niazi).
(vi) Criminal Revision No.1057 of 2004 (Sohail Alvi v. The State): filed for enhancement of convictions and sentences awarded to respondents namely, Abdul Salam Alvi, Muhammad Ehsan Alvi, RESPONDENT/CONVICT CONVICTION All Appellants/Respondents: Under sections 148/149: 9 months' R.I each with a fine of Rs.1000 each in default whereof to further 15 days' S.-I. each.
All Appellants/Respondents: Under Sections 324/149: 3 years' R.I each with a fine of Rs.5000 each in default whereof to further under three months' S.I. each.
Abdul Salam Alvi and Muhammad Ehsan Alvi:Under Sections 337-F (iii): 2 years' R.I each as Tazeer and a Daman of Rs.5000 each to be paid to Faiz Alvi injured-P.W. and were directed to be kept in jail till its realization.
Muhammad Mubasher: Under Sections 337-F(iii): 2 years' R.I as Tazeer and a Daman of Rs.5000 to be paid to Shaukat Umar ShahbazMuhammad Zaman Alvi, Asim Riaz and Muhammad Mubasher, vide judgment, dated 30-6-2003 passed by the learned Judge, dated 30-6-2003 passed by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad (Mr. Muntaz Munawar Khan Niazi).
2. Brief facts of the case, as given by the complainant Muhammad Sohail Alvi in the F.I.R., are that the accused, namely, (Abdul Salam Alvi, Ijaz Akhtar, Tariq Alvi and Muhammad Ashraf Butt each armed with .222 bore rifles, Asim Riaz, Ihsan Alvi, Zahid Riaz, Arshad Alvi, Muhammad Zaman Alvi, Waqas and Iqbal each armed with .12 bore guns/repeater, Muhammad Mubashar armed with.30 bore pistol, Rashid Alvi armed with .223 bore rifle and Riaz Akhtar Alvi armed with .244 bore rifle, in prosecution of their common object, formed an unlawful assembly and committed rioting, launched murderous assault upon the complainant party, inflicted fire-arm injuries to Fiaz Alvi, Shaukat Umar Shahbaz and Muhammad Imran Bhatti and also spread fear, sense of insecurity, panic and harassm ent in the locality and general public as well over their previous grudge and extorting money as "Bhatta" on 26-9-2001 at about 2-10 p.m. When they were present within the area of Medicine Market, Chiniot Bazar, Police Station Kotwali, Tehsil and District Faisalabad which resulted into registration of the instant case at the instance of complainant Sohail Alvi.
3. After having completed legal formalities, challan was submitted against the accused before the learned Court of competent jurisdiction, accused denied the charge and claimed trial, where, the prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, produced nine prosecution witnesses during the trial.
4. During the course of hearing of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 2003 filed for suspension of sentence of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1258 of 2003 (Abdul Salam Alvi and others v. The State), the said petition was dismissed and notice for enhancement of their sentences was issued to the appellants and their co-convicts which order formed basis of the instant Criminal Revision No.944 of 2003 (State v. Abdul Salam and others) and all the four matters, as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment, are being disposed of together through this single judgment as they arise of the same decision recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 30-6-2003 passed by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad (Mr. Muntaz Munawar Khan Niazi), whereby, respondents/appellants Abdul Salam Alvi, Muhammad Ehsan Alvi, Muhammad Zaman Alvi, Asim Riaz and Muhammad Mubasher (respondents/appellants/convicts) were convicted and sentenced as under:-- injured P.W. and was directed to be kept in jail till its realization.
Asim Riaz: Under section 337-F(i): 9 months' R.I as Tazeer and a Daman of Rs.2000 to be paid to Muhammad Faiz Alvi injured P.W. and was directed to be kept in jail till its realization.
Muhammad Zaman Alvi: Under sections 337-F(i): 9 months' R.I as Tazeer and a Daman of Rs.2000 to be paid to Shaukat Umar Shahbaz injured P.W. and was directed to be kept in jail till its realization. All the sentences were 'directed to run concurrently coupled with extension of benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. to them.
5. Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Muhammad Mubasher, submits that the learned trial Court has not believed the motive and recovery from the respondent; that he did not repeat the injury which is on the non-vital part of the injured Shaukat Umar Shahbaz which is under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C., maximum sentence provided for the same is five years, so, two years imposed by the learned trial Court is justified one, that the complainant party is a desperate one involved in some many criminal cases of heinous nature especially Fiaz Alvi (P.W.3); that it was discretion of the trial Court to award sentence though the learned trial Judge has not given any reason for lesser sentence; that the convictions and sentences were awarded on account of individual acts of the respondents; that section 324, P.P.C. Is not applicable as far as respondent Mubasher is concerned; that the respondent has served out the entire sentence and that it would not be proper to send him behind the bars at this stage. Adds that no case for enhancement of sentences is made out rather the respondent is entitled to acquittal by this Court.
6. Ch. Saeed Ahmad, Advocate appearing on behalf of the remaining respondents, submits that respondent Abdul Salam Alvi is attributed two fire-arm shots on the left leg of Fiaz Alvi; that respondents Asim Riaz and Ehsan Alvi are attributed fire-arm injuries on the left side of flank and wrist of right arm of Fiaz Alvi victim; that respondent Muhammad Zaman is attributed a fire-arm injury on the left flank of Shaukat Umar Shahbaz; that acquitted accused Arshad Alvi is attributed a fire-arm injury on the buttock of Shaukat Umar Shahbaz victim; that acquitted accused Zahid Alvi is attributed a fire-arm injury on both the legs of Fiaz Alvi; that in all there were fourteen accused persons and nine of them have already been acquitted by the learned trial Court; that out of fourteen, six were declared innocent by the police during the course of investigation and they were summoned by the learned trial Court 'to face the trial; that the case of the respondents is on similar footing to the acquitted accused; that the respondents are respectable and are not involved in any criminal case prior to the instant case; that they have already served out the sentences coupled with payment of Daman etc. Which comes to Rs.1,25,000 and that no case for enhancement of sentences is made out rather they are entitled to acquittal by this Court. In addition to the above submissions, Mr. Munir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate, who has taken charge of this case today, after having placed reliance on PLD 1985 SC 1 (head note c), contents that although no reasons have specifically been mentioned by the learned trial Court for awarding lesser sentence to the respondents but by implication it can be submitted that since the learned trial Judge had disbelieved the motive and recovery, so, this was the reason for not awarding maximum sentence.
Adds that even notice was issued to the complainant in this case during the trial.
7. On the other hand, Malik Abdul Wahid, Advocate for the complainant, who has also filed Criminal Revision No.1057 of 2004 for enhancement of sentence of the respondents and Ch. Jamshed Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab submits that three injured-P.W. Appeared before the learned trial Court and fully supported the case, so, no question for lesser sentence to the respondents arose; that most of the injuries on their persons are on vital parts of their bodies; that the ocular account in this case is corroborated by the medical evidence; that no reason has been given by the learned trial Court for awarding lesser sentence to the respondents; that the respondents were erroneously acquitted from section 7 ATA; that no defence evidence was produced by the respondents and that it is a fit case for awarding maximum sentence provided under the law. The learned DPG adds that the notice issued to the complainant by the learned trial Court was withdrawn.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar the learned counsel for the parties.
9. As far as Criminal Appeal No.1258 of 2003 (Abdul Salam Alvi v. The State) is concerned, it has become infructuous as the appellants in the same, who are respondents in this revision petition and are under notice of enhancement of their sentences, have already served out their convictions and sentences, even Daman has been paid to the respective victims which factum has even been admitted by Ch. Jamshed Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab, therefore, it is disposed of as having become infructuous. Now I would like to take up Criminal Revision No.1057 of 2003 (Sohail Alvi v. The State and others) which has been filed against the acquittal of the respondents, so, the same, being not maintainable, is accordingly dismissed because their acquittal had to be assailed through an appeal and not the revision.
10. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 26-9-2001, in all fourteen accused were named in the F.I.R. Out of whom nine were acquitted by the learned trial Court and five were convicted and sentenced who are before this Court as respondents. No appeal was filed by the State against the acquitted accused. Respondents were also acquitted from section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and cogent reasons have been given by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment which is dated 30-6-2003. The learned trial Court has disbelieved the motive in this case and also recoveries of weapons got recovered from the respondents. Appeals against the acquittal of the respondents in offences under the Surrender of Illicit Arms have already been dismissed by a learned Division Bench of this Court (headed by me) on 23-10-2007. I may mention here that the respondents have served out their entire sentences and have also paid the amounts of Daman. Six years have gone by from the date of occurrence. As compared to respondents, more numbers of the accused persons have already been acquitted by the learned trial Court on the basis of same evidence. I do not find it proper, at this stage, to enhance the sentences of the respondents for the afore-referred reasons, awarded to them by the learned trial Court through the impugned judgment. In this view of the matter the notice for enhancement issued to the respondents is hereby withdrawn in consequence whereof Criminal Revision No.944 of 2003 (State v. Abdus Salam etc.) and Criminal Revision No.1056 of 2004 (Sohail Alvi v. The State) are hereby dismissed.