SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J~ The revision petition is directed against the order dated 29-1-89 of Addl. Sessions Judge, Khushab,whereby learned Addl.Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23-7-86 of Magistrate Section 30,Jauharabad, whereof learned Magistrate had convicted the petitioner under Section 324 PPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I for 3 years plus to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in defauIt whereof to suffer R.I.For six months.
Out of the fine, on recovery, a sum of Rs.3000/- was directed to be paid as compensation to the injured P.W.
2. The contentions raised on merits by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of revision petition were not considered weighty. The revision petition was admitted only to consider the quantum of sentence because learned counsel had contended that the maximum sentence of imprisonment provided for Section 324 PPC has been awarded in this case in spite of the fact that the only injury on the injured PW on non-vital part and had been declared simple.
3. The solitary injury suffered by the complainant in this case was on the knee and the same was declared simple. The injured witness while appearing at the trial had not made any grievance of incapacitation. There was no previous long-standing enmity between the petitioner and the complainant. The only incident which had happened between the parties prior to this occurrence, was that the petitioner had been slapped once by the complainant on account of damage to his crops. It does not appear from the record that the petitioner was ever involved in any case prior to the one in hand.The case is pending since February, 1985.
In the circumstances, the sentence of 3 years R.I. Seems to be excessive. The same is reduced to R.I.
For one year keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had remained in jail for about one-and-a- half mouth as under-trial also. The sentence of fine and the direction of payment of compensation,on recovery,from fine,is maintained.