1. SHAH NAWAZ KHAN, J.-Khalid Zaman is charged for offence under section 307, P. P. C. His application for bail was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class with enhanced powers under Section 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code at Attock. After the trial, he and his co-accused Badri Zaman was also found guilty of offence punishable under section 307/34, P.P.C. And both of them were sentenced to undergo R. I. For seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, which amount was to be paid to Arif Mebmood (injured person) by way of compensation. His appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Attock by order dated 15-9-1981. He then moved the Lahore High Court, but there too he failed and his petition was dismissed in limine, and he has now moved this Court through the present petition under Article 185 of the Constitution read with Laws (Continuance in Force)
2. Order No. 1 of 1977 for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Laho re High Court dated 7-10-1981 passed in Criminal Revision No. 141 of 1981.
3. Enmity between the accused petitioner and the complainant (injures person) is admitted. The occurrence took place in the Cinema Hall during the interv al of the last show when the lights were on and the identification --was not impossible. Both the trial Court and the Sessions Judge with whom the High Court has also concurred had found that the abdomen injury to Aril Mehmood was caused by Khalid Zaman petitioner , and he has direct charged Khalid Zaman petitioner for that. Injury piercing through the muscles and going to cavity is always considered dangerous.
4. He had given a chhuri blow hitting Arif Mehmood on his abdomen. The prosecution witnesses who entered the witness-box support Arif Mehmood, and have leveled a clear charge against Khalid Nawaz for his making attempt on the life of Arif Mehmood.
5. We, therefore, see no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings o the three Courts below . The sentence awarded to Khalid Zaman petitioner is also appropriate in the circumstances of the case. This petition for leave is, therefore, dismissed.