' Ghulam Muhammad, Noor Khan, Dalil Khan, Muhammad Hayat, appellants, have filed this appeal against their conviction under section 307/34, P.P.C. Recorded by Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate Section 30, Mianwali, vide judgment, dated 3-9-1971, sentencing them to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs,500 each, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each. Muhammad Anwar Khan, complainant, has also filed a revision (Cr. R. No, 1206 of 1971) for the enhancement of their sentence. Both the matters being connected shall be disposed of by this single judgment.
2. The prosecution case briefly is that on 8-4-1971 Muhammad Anwar (P.W.1) alongwith his brother Ghulam Sarwar (P.W.6) was proceeding to Wanda Dalilwala from Wanda Shah Jahan Wala. As soon as they reached near Waya at about Deeger time, all the appellants armed with guns emerged from the hiding and confronted them. They declared that they would not spare them and then all of them started firing with their respective weapons. Muhammad Anwer (P.W.1) laid dotin on the ground but the shots hit the face of his brother Ghulam Sarwar (P.W.6) as a result of which he fell down. Muhammad Anwer raised hue and cry which attracted Ghulam Qadir and Ghulam Muhammad P.Ws. To the spot who saw the occurrence. The motive behind this occurrence was stated to be that 5/6 years prior to the occurrence Dalil Khan and Noor Khan were injured by Muhammad Anwar and his cousin Muhammad Hanif and were prosecuted, but ultimately they were acquitted.
3. Ghulam Sarwar (P.W.6) was removed to Civil Hospital at Mianwali for treatment where Dr. M.A.
Nazar (P.W.8) examined him medically and found a lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" over the face on left side 1" below the left eye, caused within the duration of 3 hours, vide report Exh.P.F.
4. The incident was reported by Muhammad Anwer (P.W.1) at Police Station Saddar, Mianwali, which was recorded by A.S.I. Sane Ullah (P.W.7) vide F.I.R. Exh.P.A., who after usual investigation chalaned the case.
5. At the trial the prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all in support of its case. Muhammad Anwer (P.W.1), Ghulam Muhammad (P.W.2), Ghulam Qadir (P.W.3) are the eye-witnesses who supported the prosecution version besides Ghulam Sarwar, the injured witness (P.W.6). Dr. M.A. Nazar (P.W.8) proved the injury on the person of Ghulam Sarwar. X-Ray examination of the injury of Ghulam Sarwar P.W. Was taken in Nishtar Hospital, Multan, but the final result was, however, not received.
The appellants in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution allegations and examined Sardar Khan (D.W.1) in their defence. The learned trial Court believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above.
6. It may be pointed out that the appellants were released on bail by order of this Court, dated 19-1- 1972 after they had svered out about 4/1 months imprisonment.
7. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted an affidavit on behalf of Ghulam Sarwar, the injured P.W., wherein he has served that he has effected compromise with the appellants. Learned counsel in view of the compromise effected between the parties has not challenged the conviction but only requested for reduction in sentence. He has relied on Khurshid Ahmad v. The State 1976 SCMR 193, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case under section 307/326/34, P.P.C. Had reduced the sentence of the appellants to the one already undergone as the parties had compromised.
8. It may be noted that there is solitary injury on the person of Ghulam Sarwar P.W. Which is simple in nature, the occurrence dates back to the year 1971, and the parties have also effected a compromise, therefore, the appellants have made out a good ease for reduction of sentence.
Taking light from the above-cited authority, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants, I feel disposed to reduce their sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone which, as observed earlier, is calculated to be above 4 months. The appeal is disposed of in the terms indicated above. In the circumstances, the criminal revision for enhancement of sentence automatically fails and is dismissed.
' Sentence reduced.