Through Criminal Revision No. 510/2013, petitioners Falak Sher and Haq Nawaz alias Hakim Kandi and through Criminal Revision No. 525/2013, petitioners Noshair and Aurangzaib, challenged their convictions and sentences respectively . Both these revisions arising out of same FIR, will be decided through single order .
Petitioners in above said petitions were tried by learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30 Bhowana in case FIR No. 181 dated 10.06.2005 for the offences under Sections 324, 337-F(v), 337-F(iii), 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-L(2), 148, 149, PPC registered at Police Station Bhowana District Chiniot and on conclusion of trial, petitioners was convicted vide judgment dated 22.02.2013 and sentenced as under: "Accused Falak Sher is convicted under section. 337-A(i), PPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with payment of daman of Rs. 5 000/, "
"Accused Noushar convicted under Section 337-A(i), PPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with payment of daman of Rs. 5000/-. "
"Accused Aurangzaib, convicted under Section 337-A(ii) and sentenced to two years R.I. alongwith arsh which is 5% of the diyat"
"Accused Haq Nawaz convicted under Section 337-A(ii), PPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith arsh which is 5% of diyat".
Main charge under Section 324, PPC was attributed to accused/Malak Sher who died and case to his extent was abated. Accused Ayub and Riaz alias Chagu were acquitted of the charge. Benefit of Section 382, Cr.P.C. was extended in favour of petitioners. They challenged their conviction and sente nces before learned Additional Sessions Judge Chiniot through criminal appeal and criminal revision, which was slightly modified and (appeal and revision of the petitioners) was dismissed vide order dated 13.06.2013.
2. FIR above mentioned was got registered by on the application (Ex.P A) of Haji Allah Yar (PW-1). Brief facts of the case are that on 9.6.2005 at 06:30 a.m., complainant alongwith his sons namely Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Zia were present at their shop situated at Aminpur Road when accused persons duly armed launched murderous assault upon complainant party and caused several injuries to them. Accused Falak Sher and Nousher gave blows with sota to Muhammad Zia which hit on the back of his head. Accused Sakeena inflicted injury to Muhammad Yaqoob with sota hitting on front side of his head. Accused Haq Nawaz alias Hakim Kandi caused injuries to Muhammad Yaqoob with iron rod. Accused Ayub and Raiz also gave beatings to injured Muhammad Yaqoob. Accused Falak Sher(deceased) armed with .12 bore double barrel made repeated fires at Zulfiqar Ali which hit on left shoulder of left arm, left side of his buttocks and on front of his abdomen: Injured were shifted to hospital for treatment. Alleged incident witnessed by Manzoor Hussain, Muhammad Afzal, sons of Ahmad Khan.
Motive behind the occurrence was dispos sessing the complainant from the owners hip of shops. After completion of investigation, challan was submitted before trial Court where accused were charg e sheeted under Sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), PPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as nine witnesses. On conclusion of trial, petitioners were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above, hence this criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners has argued that conviction and sentence of petitioners is not sustainable; that co- accused of petitioners has already been acquitted in the same set of evidence; that cross-version of accused side was not recorded due to mala fide of the complainant; that previous enmity existed between both the parties; that petitioners were also injured in the same incident; that main charge under Section 324, PPC attributed to accused Malak Sher who was died and to his extent case was abated; that in case, submissions are not found favour by this Court a request has been made to undergone the sentence so far endured by the petitioners in jail.
4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for complainant has vehemently argued that charge against the petitioners was approved; that accused jointly participated in the occurrence and all the accused are liable with which they have been charged; that ocular account are fully corroborated by medical and police found the accused persons guilty during the investigation; that recoveries were duly affected from petitioners' possession. However , in case of underg one of sentence of petitioners, learned Additional Prosecutor General showed no objection.
5 Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Prosecution in this case had produced nine witnesses to prove charge against the petitioners. In order to prove the charge against petitioners, Allah Yar complainant appealed as (PW.1) and injured of the case Muhammad Yaqoob (PW.2), Muhammad Zulfiqar (PW.3) and Muhammad Zia (PW.4) and deposed the same facts as mentioned in 'the FIR. Complainant with the help _of eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Afzal, Ahmed Khan Manzoor Hussain, shifted the injured of the case to hospital whereby they were medically examined by Dr. Ghulam Hussain Iqbal (PW.7) on the same day at 7:15 A.M During cross-examination of PWs, nothing substantial came out to shatter their veracity . Crime weapons were recovered from petitioner's possession. Petitioners could not bring on record any material regarding ill-will or malice of the complainant as well as PWs. Charge against petitioners stands proved. Main charge under Section 324, PPC was against accused Malak Shcr, who died during trial proceedings. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been noticed that petitioners are first offenders and no criminal antecedents were brought on record by the prosecution showing their involvement in criminal activities. Injuries sustained at the hands of present petitioners were not serious in nature. They have already served out major portion of sentences. They were liable to pay amount of Daman and arsh i.e. 5% of diyat to respective injured. In such backdrop, I am of the view that sentence already undergone by petitioners would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Consequently , while maintaining the petitioner's conviction, their sentences is reduced to the period already undergone. However , they will pay daman/arsh as imposed by Courts below within two months from today before trial Court failing, which the law will take its own course.
7. Sbuject to above modification, revision in hand is dismissed.