' The petitioners were charged for having voluntarily caused hurt to Rai Sultan Muhammad, P.C.S. (P.W.6), Sector Officer for distribution of subsidy to the War affected persons of Chawinda area, at 9.45 p.m. On 19-8-1966 in Middle School, village Sabzkot, District Sialkot.
2. Prosecution case was that when Rai Sultan Muhammad, P.W.6 had stopped the distribution of the subsidy at 9 p.m. The petitioners pressed him to issue them cheque of subsidy, and when he expressed his inability, as the cheque-books issued, had been exhausted, the petitioners started throwing stones on him, on the Lalkara raised by Hafiz petitioner. The stone hurled by Nazir accused had hit Roy Sultan Muhammad P.W. On the head.
3. The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses. Except Rai Sultan Muhammad P.W. 6 and Basharat Ali P.W.5, the other eye-witnesses did not support the prosecution.
4. The petitioners in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Took up the plea that a large number of people had objected to the manner of distribution, and when hot arguments were being exchanged," some person from the public hurled a stone which had hit Rai Sultan Muhammad P.W.
Twelve defence witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners supported this version of the petitioners, In fact the eye-witnesses who had resided, had also stated similarly.
5. Learned trial Court after having considered the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the charge under section 332, P.P.C. Stood proved against the petitioners, as the trial Court did not find any reason to disbelieve the statements of Rai Sultan Muhammad and Basharat Ali P.Ws, who neither were inimically disposed towards the petitioners, nor any such thing had been suggested.
They were convicted by learned trial Court under section 332 P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo one year R.I..Each vide order dated 25-9-1967.
' Appeal. Filed by the petitioners was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot vide order dated 11-12-1967. Learned appellate Court concurred with the conclusions arrived at by learned trial Court.
6. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the judgments of learned lower Courts and the evidence on record. I do not find any reason to disagree with the conclusions arrived at by both learned lower Courts, that apparently there seems to be no reason to discard the evidence of Rai Sultan Muhammad, P.C.S. And Basharat Ali P.Ws keeping in view the fact that there was no ill-will nor any enmity of the P.Ws. With the petitioners, Rai Sultan Muhammad P.W. Was examined by the doctor, and he was found injured. In this view of the matter, I do not find anything wrong in the appraisal and assessment of the evidence by learned lower Courts for recording conviction.
' However, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the case was registered in 1966 and the matter is hanging on for the last about 17 years, and that it will be a great hardship to send the petitioners to jail to undergo the remaining sentence after lapse of such a long time, seems to have substance. In view of the fact that the matter is as old as 17 years, and the occurrence had also taken place at the hands of persons, who were obviously dejected because of having been uprooted from their houses due to 1965 War, I feel that the sentence of already undergone will meet the ends of justice.
' In the light of the above observations the conviction is maintained but the sentence is reduced to that of already undergone.' The petitioners are on bail. They shall be discharged of the bail bonds.