The appellants have filed appeal against the order dated 28th February, 1982 of Kanwar Azmat Ali Khan, Magistrate section 30, Jauharabad, District Sargodha whereby the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced them to undergo 2 years' R. I. Each under section 148, P. P. C. And 5 years'
R. I. And a fine of Rs. 1,000 each under section 307/ 149, P. P. C. In default of payment of fine they were ordered to undergo 6 months' further R. I. Each and Rs. 3,000 out of the fine, if recovered, were ordered to be paid as compensation to Fateh Muhammad P. W. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that complainant Fauj Khan and the only, injured P. W. Fateh Muhammad have entered into a compromise with the appellants and that they are closely related. (Application for compromise has been filed in Court, they have placed their affidavits in this regard and their statements have also been recorded).
3. Learned counsel has argued that blunt weapons were allegedly used in this case and the only injury found to be grievous is said to have been caused by a blunt weapon. He has contended that no intention of murderous assault appears from the evidence and at the best the offence would fall with him the provisions of section 325, P. P. C., which is compoundable with the permission of the Court. He has, however, not seriously challenged the evidence of the prosecution: It is further submitted that even in non-compoundable offences the Courts have been taking lenient view while passing sentences in cases where the parties entered into genuine compromises. In this regard learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon Khurshid Ahmad v. The State(1976 SCMR 193). In that case firearm weapons had been used. The appellants had been convicted under section 307, p. p. C. And sentenced to 6 years R. I. Their Lordships of the Supreme court took into account the compromise entered into between the parties and while maintaining the conviction, reduced the sentence to that of already undergone. The present case is on a better footing than the case cited above. In this case the sentence is less than 6 years, the weapons used are also not as dangerous as firearm weapons are.
Keeping in view the change in circumstances because of compromise entered into between the parties and also taking light from the authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, I am inclined to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants. The conviction of the appellants is maintained but the sentence is reduced to that of already undergone. The appeal is disposed of with the above alterations.