' TARIQ JAVAID, J.---The petitioner along with his co-accused namely Mst. Sultana and Mst.
Khurshid Mai was tried in case F. I. R. No. 40, dated 15-2-2000, offence under sections 337F(v)/337- L(ii)/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Chab Kalan District Khanewal. Charge was framed against the petitioner/accused. He denied of the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution Produced its evidence. Statement of the accused/ petitioner was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner neither opted to appear as his own witness nor did he adduce defence evidence in disproof of allegation levelled against him as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However, Exh.D.B. Was produced in his defence. After conclusion of trial the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused under section 337-F(v), P. P.C . And sentenced him to undergo R.I. For two years as Tazir. He was also directed to pay daman Rs.20,000 to the victim whereas his Co-accused Mst. Khurshida and Sultana were acquitted of the charge. Aggrieved of the said judgment of conviction the petitioner as well as the complainant has preferred appeals which came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Khanewal who vide his consolidated judgment dated 12-2-2009 dismissed both the appeals. The petitioner, through the instant criminal revision, has assailed the impugned judgments passed by both the learned Courts below.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the Courts below have erred in law in passing the conviction and sentence against the petitioner, as statements under section 161, Cr.P.C.
Were not recorded by the police and hence the petitioner was unable to confront the P. Ws. During the trial; that Mst. Sultana and Mst. Khurshida were acquitted by the learned trial Court on the same set of evidence whereas the petitioner was convicted.
3. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. Has vehemently opposed the plea raised by the petitioner and defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that P.W.5 who was the only independent witness, depose during his cross-examination that he was a distance of about one acre when he say the complainant and the petitioner fighting each other and he was unable to identify that which of the accused person cause injury to the injured P.W. Neither he was associated in the police proceedings nor hi statement was recorded by the police. 1 statement of P.W.5 is admitted to be correct then the findings recorded by the learned Courts below for recording conviction of the petitioner appears to b misreading of the evidence. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove the charge against the petitioner/accused. In these circumstances the conclusion arrived at by the learned Courts below do not appear to be legal. Even otherwise, the petitioner has served out almost entire sentence which appears to have been awarded illegally.
5. For what has been discussed above this revision is accepted, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and thepetitioner is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.