' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Riasat Ali, Iqbal and Ashiq sons of Riala, appellants along with five other co- accused were tried by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Kasur in case F.I.R No,165, dated 4-12-2001 registered under sections 324, 334, 336, 148, 149, P.P.0 with police station Ganda Singhwala District Kasur and due to lack of jurisdiction for awarding sentence forwarded the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Kasur for entrustment of the same to a Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned Sessions Judge entrusted the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge who convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:--
(i) under section 336, P.P.C., each of the appellants to pay Arsh i.e, half of Diyat amount as mentioned in section 337-Q;
(ii) under section 324, P.P.C. To undergo 3 years' R.I. Each with fine of Rs,20,000 each, or in default thereof to further undergo 3 months' S I. ,
(iii) under section 452, P.P.C. To undergo 2 years' R.I. Each with fine of Rs,20,000 each or in default to further undergo 3 months' S.I. And
(iv) under section 148, P.P.C. The appellants were sentenced to 1 year's R.I.
2. Feeling aggrieved of the above said convictions and sentences the appellants have filed the instant appeal praying for setting aside of the same.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R Exh.PA/1 are that on the evening of 4- 12-2001 Farzand Ali complainant along with his brother-in-law Muhammad Younis and one Muhammad Hanif son of Rajadah were sitting in the Haveli of Ch. Muhammad Shafi Gujjar when suddenly accused persons namely Amanat Ali armed with rifle, Bashir armed with rifle, Javed armed with .12 bore gun and chhuri, Shaki armed with hatchet and Ashiq armed with Toka came there and made ineffective firing. The complainant and Muhammad Hanif entered into the room whereas the accused persons caught hold of Muhammad Younis injured, Muhammad Ashiq accused chopped off right hand of Younis from the wrist by giving him Toka blow. Thereafter in compliance of Bashir accused's order, Riasat and Iqbal appellants cut off the right leg of Muhammad Younis. Lastly, Bashir accused cut off the nose of Younis by giving him chhuri blow. It is alleged in the F.I.R that the occurrence took place at the instigation of Muhammad Amin Lumbardar. After the occurrence the accused persons while making aerial firing, fled away from the scene along with pump action of Muhammad Afzal. They while going also demolished the gate and wall of the Haveli with the tractor. After the occurrence the complainant submitted a complaint Exh.P.W.6/A on the basis of which the police recorded formal F.I.R Exh. PA/1 .
4. After completion of investigation, the appellants were challaned along with other co-accused to the Court of the learned Magistrate Section 30, Kasur who charge sheeted them accordingly.
5. At the trial the prosecution produced 11 witnesses in all. Muhammad Younis victim of the case appeared as P.W.1 who corroborated the version mentioned in the F.I.R. Ahmad Khan, Inspector (retired) appeared as P.W.2 and deposed that while he was posted as S.H.O. Police Station Ganda Singwala, Kasur, Farzand complainant submitted a written complaint for registration of a criminal case against eight accused persons whereupon Nasrullah Khan, A.S.I. P.W.6 got registered F.I.R No,165 of 2001 and started investigation. Being the S.H.O he prepared the challan on 21-1-2002 and submitted the same in the trial Court. He arrested the accused persons. Ashfaque accused got recovered .7 MM rifle. Bashir accused got recovered .303 rifle which were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.PA and Exh.PB. He prepared the site plans of the respective places of recoveries and recorded statements of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C., Bashir Ahmad Constable appeared as P.W.3. He witnessed the recovery of weapons of offence from Bashir Ahmad and Ashfaque alias Shaki accused; Faqir Hussain Constable appeared as P.W.4; Muhammad Ilyas appeared as P.W.5; Nasrullah Khan A.S.-I. Appeared as P.W.6 and deposed that on receipt of information of the occurrence he in the company of other police officials proceeded to the place of occurrence where Farzand Ali complainant presented an application Exh.P.W.6/A. He sent the same to the police station through Faqir Hussain constable P.W.4 for registration of the case. He prepared the map of injured Younis Exh.P.W.6/C and sent him to civil hospital with Muhammad Din Constable. Thereafter he prepared the site-plan of the Place of occurrence Exh. P.
W. 6/D , recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 12-12-2001 he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured. He obtained warrants of arrest of the accused as well as proclamation. He submitted the challan under section 512, Cr.P.C. In the Court; Muhammad Sadiq, Head Constable P.W.7 and Akhtar Hussain P.W.8 are attesting witnesses of recovery of rifle .222 bore P.W.5/1, photo-copy of licence Exh.P.W.5/2 and chhuri P.W.5/3 which were taken into possession from Javed accused vide recovery memo. Exh.P.W.5/A and P.W.5/B; Dr. Saleem-ur-Rehman who medically examined the injured appeared as P.W.9; Muhammad Yasin, S.I.
Appeared as P.W.10 .And Muhammad Jamil, A.S.-I., Moharrir of the Police Station appeared as P.W.11.
After recording the statements of above mentioned P. Ws. The prosecution closed its case.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence the learned Trial Magistrate recorded the statements of the appellants and their co-accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Riasat Ali, Ashiq, Muhammad Iqbal appellants along with Muhammad Amin co-accused deposed that they have been falsely involved in this case as Muhammad Younis injured has forgiven them who had no objection on their acquittal, whereas other accused namely Javed, Bashir Ahmad and Amanat Ali also claimed their innocence who denied all the allegations levelled against them. All the accused did not opt to appear as their own witnesses under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. They also did not produce any evidence in defence.
7. Upon conclusion of the trial the learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence adduced at the trial, considered that in view of the lack of jurisdiction he could not award adequate punishment hence, he forwarded the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Kasur, for entrustment thereof to some Court of competent jurisdiction.
As such the learned Sessions Judge entrusted the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur who after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that during the course of investigation the appellants were found innocent by the police and therefore, they remained on bail during the trial; that nothing had been recovered from the petitioners during investigation; that the sole injured of the occurrence namely Muhammad Younis P.W.1 had entered into a compromise with the petitioners and had pardoned them in the name of Almighty Allah; that the offence mentioned in the F.I.R were compoundable offence. However, the learned Trial Court had convicted the appellants in terms of section 337-N P.P.0 which was not attracted to the facts of the case and lastly contended that in view of the infirmities in the prosecution case and the fact that compromise had been effected between the injured and the appellants, the appellants were entitled to a lesser sentence.
9. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General contended that the appellants were involved in a gruesome crime and therefore, the learned Trial Court was justified in invoking the provisions of section 337-N, P.P.C. And that the appellants were also sentenced to two years' imprisonment under section 452, P.P.C. Which was a non-compoundable offence and therefore, there was no occasion for this Court to interfere in the judgment of the leaned Trial Court.
10. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the record with their able assistance.
11. It has been noticed that the appellants during the course of investigation were found innocent by Ahmad Khan, Investigating Officer P.W.2. The weapons of offence with which the appellants were alleged to be armed at the time of occurrence were also not recovered from their possession during the course of investigation. On 27-4-2006 Muhammad Younis P.W.1, the sole injured of the occurrence made a statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate to the effect that he had entered into a compromise with Riasat Ali. Muhammad Iqbal and Ashiq appellants and had pardoned them in the name of Almighty Allah. He further deposed that he had no objection if the said accused were acquitted of the charge. The learned Trial Court in view of the gravity of the offence committed by the appellants and others proceeded to invoke the provisions of section 337-N, P.P.0 and convicted and sentenced the appellants to various terms of imprisonment which were ordered to run consecutively.
12. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to reduce the term of imprisonment awarded to the appellants as prayed for by their learned counsel.
13. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants I reduce the sentences awarded to them as under:--
(i) under section 336, P.P.C. From 3 years to 2 years' R.I.
(ii) under section 324, P.P.C. From 3 years to 2 years' R.I.
' The sentences awarded under sections 452 and 148, P.P.C. Are maintained. Similarly, the sentence of Arsh, fine, the imprisonment in default thereof and the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall remain intact.
14. Further, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in particular on account of a compromise having taken place between the parties, I am of the opinion that the order of the learned Trial Court to the extent the sentences were ordered to run consecutively is a bit on the harsh side. Consequently, I direct that the sentences awarded to the appellants on different counts shall run concurrently.