RIAZ AHMED, J.--The petitioners Haider, Mushtaq armed with Sotas while the petitioner Massan armed with hatchet had attacked Allah Ditta injured PW.
2. According to the prosecution case, all the three petitioners inflicted one blow each to Allah Ditta.
According to the medical evidence, injury No.1, had been caused with a sharp-edged weapon. The x-ray report Ex.P.E/1 and x-ray film Ex.P.E were also brought on the record.
3. The learned trial Magistrate after appraising the evidence, came to the conclusion that all the three petitioners had acted in furtherance of the common intention and had caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the victim of attack. The learned trial Magistrate, vide his judgment dated 23rd of January, 1988, convicted the petitioners under section 325 P.P.C, and sentenced each of the petitioners to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years.
4. Aggrieved by their conviction, the petitioners took an appeal before the learned AddI: Sessions Judge, who, however, maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence from two years to nine months R.I. Plus a fine of Rs.500/- each, or in defauIt thereof, to suffer R.I. For a term of fifteen days, each.
5. Both the above mentioned judgments have been assailed through this revision petition and the reoerd of the case has also been perused by me.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that conviction in this case under section 325 P.P.C, cannot be recorded because the Radiologist was not examined. To support his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon NLR 1985, Criminal 31, Muhammad Ramzan vs. The State. In the precedent case, it was held that the conviction under section 325 P.P.C, cannot be recorded if Radiologist is not*examined to prove that the injury was grievous. I have considered this aspect of the case. The crucial question in this case is that if the conviction under section 325 P.P.C is not sustainable, then the same will have to be converted into one under section 324 P.P.C. A perusal to section 324 P.P.C, indicates that a person can be punished to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years, in this case, the sentence has already been reduced to nine months by the learned appellate Court.
7. The petitioners were taken into custody on 2nd of October, 1988 after the dismissal of their appeal and since then, they are behind the bars and by now, they have undergone sentence of five months. Under these cirumstances, I will further reduced the sentence of the petitoners from ninemonths to six months. The petitioners shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/- each as compensation to Allah Ditta and in defauIt thereof, the petitioners shall have to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another term of one month each.