' Since, the revision petition in hand as well as Crl. Misc. No, 210-M of 2013 (Noor Ahmad vs. Niaz etc.) are inter-connected with each other, therefore, the same are taken up together.
2. The revision petition filed by Niaz Ahmad & 2 others is directed against judgment dated 15.04.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahiwal and the judgment dated 12.01.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, whereby the petitioners were convicted under Section 337A(i), PPC and were sentenced to pay 'Daman' to the tune of Rs, 10,000/- each to Noor Ahmad, injured with simple imprisonment for one year. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended in their favour. The learned appellate Court had varied the order to the extent of imposing simple imprisonment for one year while rest of the conviction and sentence was maintained through the impugned judgment.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners alongwith Riaz, Imtiaz, Faiz Ahmad and Farooq, were tried in case FIR No, 433 dated 27.06.1998, lodged under Sections 452, 354, 337F(ii), 337F(v), 337F(i), 337L2, 148. 149, PPC with Police Station Yousdfwala District Sahiwal. As per report, three Petitioners Niaz etc., had inflicted soti' blow on the head of Noor Ahmad. Another accused, namely, Maqbool Ahmad, was also charged with the offence falling under Section 337F(v), PPC but during the trial, he kissed the dust. After the conclusion of trial, the petitioners were indicted in the above terms and the appeal filed by them, was also dismissed with above said modification. Regarding rest of the offences, the petitioners were acquitted against which no appeal or revision was filed by the complainant Noor Ahmad.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It is noticed from the record that the petitioner-side had lodged FIR against complainant and others which was cancelled and the petitioners were convicted and sentenced in the cross-version lodged by Noor Ahmad, complainant.
6. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioners in the cross-version of Noor Ahmad, is that they were armed with 'Dangs' and Niaz, petitioner caused an injury on the top of his head; similar blow was given by Zawar Hussain, petitioner at the head of the complainant with his 'Dang' and then Mumtaz, petitioner had given the same treatment to the head of the complainant. In this manner, the complainant had received one injury at the top of his head while two injuries on the other side of head, which locale of injury was not specified. This attribution given by the complainant is not supported by his medico-legal certificate which shows that all the three injuries were received by Noor Ahmad, on the top of his head. Noor Ahmad, appeared in the Court as PW.1 and stated that all the three persons, caused injuries at his head without disclosing the side on which, he had received the injuries. PW.2, although, has supported PW. 1, but without pointing out the locale of the injuries.
Although, the FIR lodged by the petitioner side, was cancelled but it had given another picture of the story mentioning that Noor Ahmad and others had launched an assault upon them causing injuries to them. Since, no medical certificate regarding those injuries was produced before the police that is why the FIR was cancelled. In view of the contents of FIR lodged by the petitioner side, there is every likelihood that the parties had free fight with each other and curing that scuffle, Noor Ahmad, had received some injuries on his head. Similarly, regarding the other offences charged against the petitioners, they were acquitted but no appeal or revision was filed in this respect. The fatal injury was attributed to one Maqbool Hussain, who, the trial had died. The learned Courts below, have misread the evidence and have not properly appreciated the record while convicting and sentencing the petitioners, as such, the judgments concurrently rendered by the Courts below are the result of misreading of evidence and non-reading of the record, thus are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
7. For the reasons stated above, Crl. Revision No, 347 of 2013 is accepted and the impugned judgments are set aside resulting into acquittal of the petitioners.
8. In Crl. Misc. No, 210-M of 2013, Noor Ahmad, petitioner, has prayed for enhancing the sentence awarded to Niaz and others but since, the revision petition of Niaz etc. Has been accepted and they have been acquitted from the charge, therefore, this petition rendered infructuous which is disposed of accordingly.