1. ' This is a revision petition filed by Khushi Muhammad and Jamal Din, petitioners, against the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge of Lahore, dated 21-5-1971, dismissing their appeal.
2. Earlier, a first class Magistrate of Lahore, by his judgment, dated 30-3-1971, had convicted both the petitioners under section 435, P.P.C. And sentenced them to two years' R.I. Each.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the sugarcane crop of P.W. Muhammad Shah was set on fire one evening at 7-00 p.m. Khushi Muhammad and Jamal Din, accused, both real brothers, were seen running from the place of occurrence, by Noor Shah, Muhammad Shah and Akbar Shah P.Ws. They could not be caught by the prosecution witnesses mentioned above, as they were successful in entering into their house. Muhammad Shah P.W. Lodged a report with ,the police.
3. ' The police came to the place of occurrence and recovered sticks of burnt sugarcane and after investigation, challaned both the accused under section 435 of the P.P.C.
4. 3 Mr. Manzoor Hussain Sial, Advocate for the petitioners, has been elevated to the Bench. Registered A.D. Notices were issued to the petitioners for' oday's date of hearing, but nobody has turned up.
5. Mrs. Surriya Irshad, Advocate, appears for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the State, I have perused the record. The prosecution case stands proved to the hilt by the evidence of Noor Shah P.W.1, Muhammad Shah P.W.2 and Akbar Shah P.W.3. Noor Shah P.W.1 is an independent witness. All these three witnesses saw the petitioners running away from the place of occurrence, after setting on fire the sugarcane crop of Muhammad Shah P.W.2. Ahmad Ali Shah P.W.4, who is also an independent witness and claims to be the spiritual teacher of the petitioners, stated that -the petitioners and his father came to him with a request to prevail upon the complainant Muhammad Shah P.W.2 not to report the matter to the police. In these circumstances, the petitioners appear to have been properly convicted and sentenced under section 435, P.P.C.
6. This petition, which was admitted in 1971, has now come up for hearing after almost thirteen years.
7. The sentences of the petitioners were suspended in 1971. It would be unjust to send them back to prison to serve out the balance period of their sentences. However, considering that the offence for which they have been found guilty is a serious one, I would impose a fine of Rupees two thousand (Rs,2,000) each on the petitioners in the alternative.
8. 4 For the foregoing reasons, whilst maintaining the conviction of Khushi Muhammad and Jamal Din petitioners, under section 435, P.P.C. I would reduce their sentences to that already undergone, but would direct that each of the petitioners shall pay Rupees two thousand (Rs,2,000) to Muhammad Shah P.W.2 as compensation for burning his sugarcane crop. In the event that the said compensation is not paid, the petitioners concerned shall undergo one year's R.I. Subject to the said compensation being paid the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners shall stand discharged.
9. In case the compensation is not paid, the petitioners shall be taken into custody to serve out the term of imprisonment imposed in lieu thereof.