This appeal has been filed by Allah Diwaya and his two sons Muhammad Bakhsh and Ahmad Bakhsh against their conviction under section 307/324/34, P. P. C. Recorded by a Magistrate Section 30, Taunsa, District Dera Ghazi Khan, vide his order dated 27th September, 1981 whereby they were sentenced to 6 years' R. I. And a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default of payment of fine they were ordered to undergo further R. I. For 6 months each.
2. The sentence of the appellants was not suspended although their appeal was admitted to a regular hearing. They are in jail and are serving their sentence.
3. In this case Amon Ullah (P. W. 1) was injured by the appellants. Allah Diwaya appellant, was armed with a hatchet and his two sons Muhammad Bakhsh and Ahmad Bakhsh, appellants were armed with sotas when they launched an attack on Amon Ullah P. W. On 12th March, 1981 in the vicinity of village Daulatwala, Tehsil Taunsa, District Dera Ghazi Khan. Amon Ullah (P. W. 1) suffers 15 injuries in all which included 3 incised wounds and the rest were bruises and abrasions. All the injuries were declared to be simple in nature, by the Medical Officer, D. H. Q. Hospital, Dera Ghazi Khan (P. W. 7). With regard to the same incident, a cross-case was registered at the instance of Allah Diwaya, appellant, against Amon Ullah (P. W. 1). On the allegation that he had caused two injuries to the appellant ; one of them was fracture of radius bone of Allah Diwaya, appellant. This case was registered under section 325, P. P. C. The learned trial Court, on appraisement of evidence, found this case to be doubtful and acquitted Amon Ullah. Allah Diwaya, appel--lant, filed a revision petition (C. R. No. 224-1981-) against the acquittal of Amon Ullah in which I had issued a notice to Amon Ullah and bailable warrants were also issued against him.
4. The parties represented by their counsel are present before me today. They have filed a written compromise which has been placed on record.
5. No serious challenge has been thrown as to the conviction of the appellants on merits and in view of the compromise, the only request made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that their sentence be reduced to the one already undergone since the parties have effected a written compromise.
6. In view of the interest of peace and good relations between the parties, I feel inclined to reduce the sentence of the appellants to the one already undergone, respectfully following the view expressed by their Lord ships of the Supreme Court in Khurshid Ahmad v. The State (1976 SCMR 193). The sentence of fine is also remitted.
7. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. The appellants be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.