' This will dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos. 716 and 1068 of 1976. The petitioners in Criminal Revision No, 716 of 1976 were tried under sections 148, 447 and 324 read with section 149 of the P.P.C. On the complaint of Muhammad Yaseen, petitioner, in Criminal Revision No, 1068 of 1976 and were sentenced by the learned trial Magistrate's order, dated 28-4-1975 to one year's R.I. Under section 148 of the P.P.C., three months' R.I. Under section 447 of the P.P.C. And two years' R.I. Under section 324 read with section 149 of the P.P.C. Each. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, maintained the convictions and sentences and directed that the sentences should run concurrently.
2. The petitioners in Criminal Revision No, 716 of 1976 pray for the setting aside of their conviction and sentence and the petitioner in Criminal Revision No, 1068 of 1976 prays that the convicts should be awarded the maximum sentence under sections 148 and 324 of the P.P.C.
3. The prosecution case was as follows. Haji Muhammad Din, father of Muhammad Yaseen, complainant, and Ghulam Muhammad convict had purchased land measuring 12 Acres comprising Squares Nos. 62, 63, 19, 21 and 45 jointly, the share of Haji Muhammad Din being 2/3 and that of Ghulam Muhammad 1/3 some 15 years before the occurrence, which took place on 14-5- 1972. While Haji Muhammad Din had, by a private arrangement, been in possession of land comprising Squares Nos. 62 and 63, Ghulam Muhammad had been in possession of land comprising Squares Nos. 19, 21 and 45. Sometime before the occurrence, Ghulam Muhammad convict started demanding fresh partition of the land. On 14-5-1972, Muhammad Yaseen, Muhammad Idrees and Muhammad Amin were ploughing Killa No,1 of Square No, 63, when the convicts went there armed with Dangs, speas and hatchets, shouted a Lalkara that they should not cultivate the land till fresh partition. This led to an altercation and the convicts attacked Muhammad Yaseen and others. They ran but the convicts overtook them in Killa No,5 of Square No, 62 and there caused injuries to Muhammad Amin, Idrees and Muhammad Ismail P.Ws. It was said that Rafique convict had chased the complainant, Muhammad Yaeen, to cause injuries but he saved himself by running away. The convicts, Muhammad Yaseen, complainant, admitted in the witness-box, also received injuries during the course of the incident.
4. The prosecution case was supported by the testimony of Muhammad Yaseen, Muhammad Idrees, Muhammad Ismail, Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Sharif and Ghulam Muhammad P.Ws. In their defence, the convicts examined Abdullah, Salamat, Jan Muhammad, Ismail and Abdul Ghafoor. The last named D.W. Was Reader to the Court of the learned trial Magistrate; he said that two other cases, one under section 325 and the order under section 447 of the P.P.C., were pending.
5. It appears, however, that the convicts did not have themselves medically examined for their injuries, if any. Learned counsel for the convicts did not think it worth his while to challenge the concurrent finding of fact of the learned Courts below, namely, that the convicts had armed themselves and had acted aggressively. He made two points; (i) that the parties were joint-owners and it will not serve any purpose to send the convicts to jail after such a long time and (ii) that no offence under section 447 of the P.P.C. Was made out. The second contention is, in my view, entitled to succeed. As has been seen above, it was not the prosecution case that the convicts had gone to Killa No,1 of Square No, 63 to take its possession. According to the prosecution, the convicts wanted a fresh arrangement in respect of the joint land and did not, therefore, want the land to be cultivated by the complainant party till that arrangement was reached. It was as a result of the altercation which ensued when the convicts demanded that till fresh partition, the land should not be cultivated that the attack was allegedly launched. No offence under section 447 of the P.P.C.
Was, therefore, committed. The conviction of Ghulam Muhammad etc. Under section 324 read with sections 149 and 148 of the P.P.C., however, appears to be unexceptionable. As regards the sentence, I also agree that it will be not fair and just after the lapse of more than 12 years to send the convicts to jail. I would, therefore, while maintaining the conviction under section 324 read with section 149 of the P.P.C. And section 148 of the P.P.C. Reduce the sentence to imprisonment already undergone. The conviction and sentence of Ghulam Muhammad etc. Under section 447 of the P.P.C, are set aside.
6. Consequently, Criminal Revision No, 1068 of 1976 is dismissed. .