The petitioners were convicted on 14th September 1974 under sec--tion 325/34, P. P. C. By the learned Magistrate, Jhang and sentenced to undergo R. I. For 1-- years each in addition to fine of Rs. 200 each in default of payment of fine to suffer R. I. For one month each. They challenged the order of their conviction and sentence by means of appeal and the same was dismissed on 2nd June 1976 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang.
2. This petition is directed against the aforementioned order. The allegations against the petitioners were that they on 2nd May 1973, at about midnight in the area of village Hassan, Police Station Massan, they having armed themselves with dangs launched attack on Sultan, P. W. 3 and gave 7 injuries to him out of which injures 6 and 4 were declared grievous. The occurrence was witnessed by Varyam, Humayun, Muhammad Bakhsh and Khadim P. Ws. The motive behind the occurrence was that two days before the occurrence Mushtaq petitioner was prevented by Sultan P. W. From standing in front of his house as the women folk used to sit outside the house. Mushtaq petitioner took exception to it and consequently in company of his brother Ishaq petitioner in furtherance of their common intention attacked Sultan P. W. And gave injuries to him as noted above. Varyam P.
W. Lodged F. I. R. Exh. P. A. On 3May, 1973. Varyam P. W. I at the trial reiterated in his statement what was reported by him in the F. I. R. Muhammad Bakhsh and Khadim P. Ws. Who had witnessed the occurrence supported him in his statement. Sultan P. W. The victim of the assault narrated the entire version of the occurrence. The petitioners were apprehended and at their instance dangs Exh. P. 1 and EXh. P. 2 were taken into possession vide Memo. Exh. P. B. And P. C. Respectively. Dr. Inam-ul-Haq P. W. 5 who had medically examined Sultan P. W. Stated at the trial that at 5 p. m. On 2nd May, 1973 he examined the injured and found seven injuries on his person out of which Injuryrd No. 4 was declared grievous. Dr. Sana Ullah Y. W. 7 Radiologist proved his report dated 2May, 1973 Exh. P. E. And stated that Injury No. 6 was declared grievous.
3. The petitioner convicts at the trial denied the charge and. Pleaded that they were falsely implicated in the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. It was also submitted that the petitioners had already undergone substantial portion of their sentence apart from undergoing the agony of trial for a considerable time.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand argued that the prosecution has established its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and the order of their conviction was proper.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out either misreading of evidence or non- consideration of evidence which might have resulted in miscarriage of justice. The evidence of Sultan P. W. 3 read with eye-account furnished by Varyam, Khadim and Muhammad Bukhsh P. Ws.
Proved the prosecution case against the A petitioners beyond any shadow of doubt. The identity of the petitioners could not be doubted as it was a midday occurrence witnessed by P. Ws. Apart from Sultan the injured P. W. The unanimous findings of the Courts below on the basis of the appraisal of evidence on record are not subject to interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. I therefore maintain the conviction of the petitioners.
7. As regards the sentences awarded to them, the petitioners have already suffered some portion of their sentences apart from suffering the strains and agony of trial for considerable time. In this view of the matter the ends of justice would squarely be met if the sentences imposed upon the petitioners are reduced to that already undergone by them. I, therefore, direct that the petitioners' sentences be reduced to that already suffered by them. The petitioners however shall pay the amount of fine as directed by the learned trial Court within two months from the date of this order failing which they shall undergo R. I. For one month each as ordered on 4th September, 1974 by the learned Magistrate, Jhang.