' The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Javaid lqbal and Pervaiz lqbal petitioners along with three co-accused were tried by Magistrate Section 30 Daska, who vide his judgment dated 27-7-1983 convicted two petitioners and one Noor Ahmad under section 307/149/148, P.P.C. and sentenced them as under:-
(i) Under section 148, P.P.C. to six months R.I. each.
(ii) Under section 307/149, P.P.C. four years R.I. and a fine of Rs, 1800 in default thereof nine months S.I. to Javaid lqbal and two years R.I. and a fine of Rs, 600 in default thereof three months S.I. to Pervaiz lqbal.
' The appeal filed by the three convicts was partly accepted and co-accused namely Noor Ahmad was acquitted and the conviction and sentences of the petitioners were maintained. The appellate Court directed that the petitioners/appellants therein shall get benefit of provisions of section 382- B, Cr.P.C. It was also directed that the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. While conceding that the three injured witnesses namely, Sana Ullah, Said Muhammad and ljaz Akhtar had received injuries at the hands of the petitioners, the learned counsel challenged the nature of offences under which they have been convicted by the trial Court. The learned counsel submits that no case of murderous assault is made out. Conversely the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find sufficient force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioneRs, I find that in the case in hand three persons received injuries. Sana Ullah received nine injuries caused by Dang out of which injury No,9 on the left hand has been declared grievous. This injury was specifically attributed to Javaid lqbal petitioner. Said Muhammad P.W. received 10 injuries caused by blunt weapon. ljaz Ahmad received four simple injuries by blunt weapon. Since no grievous injury was found on the vital part of the three injured witnesses and none of the injuries was found to be dangerous to life therefore, to my mind there was no legal and factual justification for the trial Court to convict the petitioners under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. In the peculiar circumstances of the case it does not appear t be a case of vicarious liability. That being the position the convictions and the sentences of the petitioners under section 148/307/149, P.P.C. are set aside. Instead Javaid lqbal is convicted under section 325, P.P.C. because he caused grievous injury with Deng which, as a weapon of offence could cause the death. In view of the nature and number of the injuries I am of the view that a sentence of 21 years R.I. and a fine of Rs, 1800 in default thereof nine months S.I. would meet the case. As far Pervaiz lqbal petitioner is concerned he is convicted under section 324, P.P.C. He remained in jail for about four months, therefore, the sentence already undergone by him would meet the case. The sentence of fine of Rs, 600 and sentence of three months S.I. in default thereof is maintained. He shall deposit the fine with the trial Court within 15 days failing which the trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest and detention. The petitioner Javaid lqbal will also get the benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.