Through filing this revision the petitioners who are 4 in number have challenged the order of.
Sessions Judge, Kasur, dated 28-4-1980, whereby their appeal was dismissed and their conviction and sentence recorded by Magistrate 1st. Class, Chunian on 7-2-1980 was upheld.
2. The prosecution case as disclosed at the trial briefly is that Khadim Hussain, complainant and the petitioners had a dispute over Mutwaliship of the Shrine of Miran Shah situated in village Hanjran Kalan. It was alleged that the petitioners bore a grudge against the complainant who used to sweep and clear the Darbar. At 8 a.m. On 31-10-1977, the petitioner duly armed went to the complainant's house and called him out. Khadim Hussain and his were Mst. Hussain Bibi when came out, were attacked. Mst. Ashraf Bibi his daughter and Murtaza his son intervened to rescue Khadim Hussain complainant but they too were belaboured. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Hanif P.Ws. The injured P.Ws. Were removed to the hospital, where Dr: Muhammad Rafi, Medical Officer, Pattoki (P.W.2) examined them, the same day, and found two contusions on the person of Khadim Hussain including fracture of bone of his little finger.
Mst. Ashraf Bibi and Hussain Bibi had 3 injuries each while Murtaza had 2 injuries which were found simple in nature caused with blunt weapon within the duration of 6 hours.
3. The occurrence was reported to the police by Khadim Hussain on 5-11-1977 i.e. 5 days after the incident vide F.I.R. Exh.P.K. Recorded by Muhammad Afsar Moharrir, Head Constable, Police Station Sarai Mughal. Muhammad Wazir, A.S.-I. Completed the investigation and challaned the case to Court.
4. At the trial the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all including 4 injured witnesses and 3 eye- witnesses namely Ghulam Murtaza (P.W.8) Khan Muhammad (P.W.9) and Muhammad Hanif (P.W.10). All of them supported the prosecution version.
5. At the conclusion of the trial, the petitioners, when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution allegation and explained that they have been falsely. Implicated on account of the dispute of Mutwalliship existing between them and the complainant. They examined 2 witnesses in their defence, namely Rehmat Ali (D.W.1) and Faqir Muhammad (D.W.2) who stated that on the day of occurrence Khadim Hussain, Mustafa, Murtaza armed with sticks accompanied by Mst. Hussain Bibi and Mst. Ashraf Bibi came to the house of Sadiq Ali Shah and caused injuries to him and then lodged the present false case against them. It appears that Sadiq Ali Shah had filed a private complaint against the complainant party, vide copy Exh.D.A.
6. On a detailed examination of the material on record learned trial Court observed that the delay of 5 days in lodging the F.I.R. Has been satisfactorily explained because the police had initially refused and registered the case after a complaint had been made to Martial Law Authority. He believed the prosecution case as narrated by the injured witnesses supported by other independent witnesses and convicting the petitioners under section 325, P.P.C. Sentenced them to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100 each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months. It was also directed that if fine was realised it would be paid as compensation to the injured P.Ws. The petitioners appealed to the Sessions Judge but remained unsuccessful, hence this revision.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the record. Admittedly the prosecution witnesses particularly the injured one are related inter se and have enmity with the petitioners over the Mutwalliship of a shrine. Their evidence, therefore, cannot be accepted without corroboration by some other independent evidence of unimpeachable character. In this case the recovery of weapons had been wrongly used as corroborative evidence because they were not stained with blood. Four persons of the complainant party had been injured who in all suffered 10 injuries which were declared simple in nature except one fracture of little finger of Khadim Hussain P.W. Which was termed as grievous. Medical evidence of course could be used as corroborative circumstance against the petitioners. The fact that ladies of the complainant were injured shows that complainant party was not aggressor. In these circumstances, therefore, I find that the conviction of the petitioners was rightly' recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate, Court. This brings us to the question of sentence.
8. In view of the fact that 4 persons have been involved for causing 10 injuries and only one of them is grievous which involves fracture of little finger of Khadim Hussain, therefore, I find that sentence of 18 months plus fine is excessive and certainly calls for reduction. It may be stated that the petitioners sentence alas suspended by the Court on 1-7-1980 when they had served about 3 months imprisonment. In view of the fact that the petitioners suffered a protracted trial for about 2 years as observed by the learned trial Court in para. 14 of his judgment and, the only grievous injury involved fracture of little finger, therefore, it will fairly meet the ends of justice if the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone: With this modification in the sentence this petition is disposed of.