RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.- The facts leading to the filing of this revision arc that Nawazish Ali Shah petitioner was tried by Magistrate Section 30, Ferozewala, for causing injury with knife in the abdomen of Nawazish Ali P.W. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 20.11.78 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to three years R.I and a fine of Rs.500/- or in defauIt R.I for 6 months. He was also directed to pay Rs.500/- as compensation to the injured Nawazish Ali P.W. The petitioner assailed the judgment which came up for hearing before Sessions Judge Sheikhupura, who, vide his judgment dated 25.11.1978 dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence. The petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence in this revision.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is un-explained delay of about 18 hours in the registration of the case. Contends that Nawazish Ali P.W the injured in cross- examination admitted that the witnesses came at the spot after he had been injured, therefore, they could not have witnessed the occurrence. Submits that the trial Court disbelieved the rcovery of knife at the instance of the petitioner therefore, the statements of the witnesses who were inimical and interested may not he relied upon without corroboration which is not available.
Submits that the occurrence took place on 11.7.1975 and the petitioner was arrested the following day and remained in jail for more-lhnn three months which is sufficient in the circumstances of the case. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the stale.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the file. The prosecution in support of its case produced 10 witnesses in all. The eye witness account has been furnished by Liaquat, Muhammad Nawaz and Nawazish Ali P.W.2.3 and 4 respectively. They have been cross-examined at length but the defence could not bring anything on the record, to prove that they are not truthful witnesses or did not witness the occurrence. I have gone through the statement of Nawazish Ali injured who has given detailed account of the occurrence. In these circusmtances, I hold that the witnesses are truthful and could be relied upon.
4. While going through the FIR and the statements of the witnesses one thing is clear that prior to the present occurrence on the same day i.e. 11.7.1975 in the morning the petitioner and Nawazish Ali injured P.W had an aItercation but were separated by the people. The cause of incident was that the injured P.W used to pass in front of the house of the petitioner while coughing which was objected to by the petitioner. Even at the time of occurrence the petitioner asked the injured P.W.
Not to look inside his house while passing in the lane to which he replied that he could not close his eyes, In these circumstances 1 feel that the petitioner was provocated by the injured P.W.
5. I gave notice to the petitioner to show-cause why the sentence of compensation be not enhanced. The notice was accepted by learned counsel for the petitioner w'ho contended that the petitioner has been sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/- as well as compensation of Rs.500/- which is sufficient in the circumstances of the case. As I have already held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case and the petitioner was rightly convicted by both the Courts below but I feel that it will not serve any useful purpose if the petitioner is sent to jail to serve the remaining portion of his sentence. In these circumstances, while dismissing the revision, 1 reduce the sentence and direct that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone will meet the ends of justice. However, the sentence of compensation of Rs.500/- is increased to Rs.5,000/- which shall be paid to Nawazish Ali injured P.W.5, in defauIt of payment, he shall further undergo three months R.I. The revision is disposed of in the terms staled above.