The to petitioners Dui Muhammad and Ghafoora were convicted along with' Sajwara and Wallia under section 308; 34 P. P. C. And sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three year with a fine of Rs: 1,000 each or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for causing injuries to Allah Bakhsh, his wife Mst. Lalan and his nephew Falak Sher P. Ws. But on appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge con--verted their conviction to that under section 323/34, P. P.
C. And the sentence of Dur Muhammad petitioner and - Sajwara were reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with Rs. 1,000 as fine or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months and that of Ghafoora petitioner and Wallia to rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 200 or --in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Dur Muhammad and Ghafoora petitioners have appro--ached this Court with a petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to question the correctness of this order while their co-accused, Sajwara and Wallia seem to have accepted the verdict:
2. The prosecution case as finally established is that -Allah Bakhsh and Anwar P. Ws. Had jointly cultivated, Bersim crop in Killa No. 20 of the land in dispute and the latter had sold his share of the crop to Sajwara (co-accused of the petitioners) whose cattle were found grazing there in the afternoon of the eventful day and were being collected by Mst. Lalan P. W. When Sajwara (co- accused of the petitioner) altercated with her and inflicted a lathi -blow on her thigh. The alarm so raised attracted her husband Allah Bakhsh and her nephew Falak Sher P. Ws. To the spot along with Rustam, a brother of her husband. Seeing then approach Sajwara (co-accused of the petitioners) called out for help, in response to which Dur Muhammad and Ghafoora petitioners as also Wallia (co-accused of the petitioners) turned up from the other side, who attacked Allah Bakhsh and Falak Sher P. Vs. And caused simple injuries to them with lathis in the course of this sudden quarrel about the grazing of the cattle in that. Kills. The matter was reported to the police on the same evening at 7-30 p.m. Vide Exh. P. A. On the basis of which the present case was registered against the petitioners and their to co-accused.
3. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Shamim P. W. On 17th May 1969, examined Allah Bakhsh and found eight simple injuries on his person vide Exh. P. B. And to simple injuries on the person of Falak Sher vide Exh. P: C. And to simple injuries on the person of Mst. Lalan vide Exh. P. D.
4. After an half-hearted attempt learned counsel for the petitioners gave up the contest about, the conviction of 'the petitioners under section 323/34, P. P. C. And only urged for the reduction of the sentence awarded to Dur Muhammad petitioner as there was nothing in the prosecution evidence to show that he had caused more harm to the prosecution witnesses that Ghafoora petitioner and Wallia (their co-accused); who were awarded lesser sentence. Learned counsel for the State objected to it on the ground that the petition was admitted only to consider if there was any justification for the order about the execution of bonds to keep peace for one year in the sum of Rs.
5,000 after serving out the sentence awarded to them but I am not inclined to accept his contention as any error, impropriety or illegality of any finding, sentence or order passed by the Courts below can be agitate and pressed once the record has been summoned for examination by this Court is exercise of its revisional jurisdiction although : it had not been urged at the the of the admission of this petition as the provisions of section 435/439, Cr. P. C. Are not circum--scribed by any such limitations and this Court can pass any appropriate order to correct any such error, impropriety and illegality in the interest of justice which is the supreme concern of this Court. In taking this view of the matter I am fortified by the observations made in Mohibullah v. Usman and another (PLD 1967 Pesh. 311).
5. Going back to the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioners I find that Falak Sher P. W.
Had himself admitted that the accused, (including the petitioners) had also purchased the grass under the Barsim crop from Anwar one of its share--holders. Mst. Lalan P. W. Had also conceded that Anwar had sold one kanal of the Barsim crop to Sajwara (the co-accused of the petitioners) though her husband Allah Bakhsh P. W. Had reduced it to five marlas only, but it is well known that "Barsim" one sowed gives no less than four crops. (Lao) which are cut one after the others. The prosecution case is that they had cut the crisp while the petitioners stated that there was still some growth of Barsim in the portion of the crop admittedly purchased by them, so there could be a bona fide dispute about their right to graze their cattle therein and in the course of a sudden quarrel about it. Dur Muhammad petitioner is said to have given only one lathi blow to Allah Bakhsh like the other of his co-accused Falak Sher (P. W. 1) in his statement at the trial did not mention at all that it fell on his head. Anyhow the result being the same (simple) as in the case of the other injuries inflicted by the other assailants of Allah Bakhsh P. W. He did not deserve any more punishment than awarded to the Ghafoora and Wallia. I, there--fore, reduce his sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 200 or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month only as is in their case.
6. As regards the order of execution of bonds for keeping peace for one year in the sum of Rs. 5,000 after the expiry of their sentence, I find that the lower Appellate .Court while modifying the conviction and sentence of the petitioners and their co-accused had dropped this part of the order of the trial Court and had reduced the sentence of Dur Muhammad petitioner and Sajwara to rigorous imprisonment for one year with the same amount of fine i.e. . Rs. A000 and had also reduced further imprisonment in default of payment of this fine to three months instead of six months. The emphasis on the words "the same amount of fine" in case of Dur Muhammad and the reduction in the sentence and fine in case of Ghafoora petitioner and Wallia (his co-- accused) indicated the modification. Was not only in the term of imprisonment but in the entire sentence (including that of the execution of bonds). It was not only an omission to mention it but had been dropped for all intents and purposes. Anyhow there was no justification in imposing this condition of execution of bonds as there was no long standing enmity or litigation between the parties and the occurrence was the outcome of a casual flare up on account of party dispute about the grazing of the cattle. This part of the sentence is accordingly set aside. With theses modifications in the order the petition is dismissed.
7. Sajwara, the co-accused of the petitioners, had not joined them in this petition nor had preferred any separate petition of his own challenging the order passed against him, but it, is now a settled law that this Court can grant the relief even to those accused, who had not been, party to the revision petition as held in Bula Khan and others v. The State (PLD 1966 Kar.. 608) and Gauhra v.
The State (1968 P Cr. L J 1118). On examination of the record I find that his case was not much distinguishable from that of the to petitioners as Mst. Lalan P. W. Had abused him before he caused a simple injury with a blunt weapon (laths) on her thigh. It was in fact admitted by Falak Sher P. W.
In his statement at the trial that Allah Bakhsh P. W. His uncle, had given a lathi blow to Sajwara which had aggravated the situation so he cannot be denied the benefit of the reduction in sentence to Dur Muhammad petitioner. I, therefore, reduce his sentence as well to rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 200 or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month as has been done in the case of the to petitioners. Reduction warrants to issue immediately.