' Gulsher, Ahmad and Mahma were tried by Magistrate 1st Class, Shahpur, along with Ramzan, Sultan and Ghaus for offences under section 326/452/148/149, P.P.C., for an occurrence, said to have taken place on 16-101974. Learned trial Magistrate, vide order dated 30-3-1977, convicted all of them under section 326/452/148/149, P.P.C. And awarded sentence of 3 years' R.I. To each of them under section 326/149, P.P.C., 3 years' R.I. Each under section 452, P.P.C. And one year's R.I. Each under section 148/149, P.P.C. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The appeal filed by them was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide order, dated 26-4-1977. All the convicts challenged their convictions by way of revision petition. The revision petition qua Ramzan, Sultan and Ghaus was dismissed in limine, vide order dated 29-6- 1977. Although the revision petition qua Gulsher, Ahmad and Mahma was also disposed of on merits vide the same order by upholding their convictions, yet the same was, however, admitted only to consider the quantum of sentence.
3. Prosecution case at the trial was that Ramzan accused armed with a hatchet accompanied by Sultan, Ghaus, Gulsher, Ahmad and Mahna armed with Dangs, had entered the house of Mumtaz during the night between 16th and 17th of October, 1974 and had launched attack on him. Ramzan had given a hatchet blow to Mumtaz, as a result of which his nose was cut and lips were injured. He was also given two more injuries. Muhammad Khan P.W.2 and Amir P.W.6 were also given injuries by the accused on their having tried to intervene.
4. Motive for the occurrence was suspicion of Ramzan accused about illicit relationship of Mumtaz with his wife.
5. On medical examination, Mumtaz P.W. Was found to have suffered one grievous injury and two simple injuries. Amir P.W. Was found to have suffered five injuries, four of which were abrasions.
Muhammad Khan P.W. Was found to have suffered two injuries, one of which was a complaint of pain, while the other was an abrasion. (It may be mentioned here that in the medico-legal certificate the name of one Muhammad Hayat is mentioned instead of Muhammad Khan, but the parentage and address is that of Muhammad Khan).
6. Considering the statements made by the witnesses, it appears that Gulsher, Ahmad and Mamun had caused simple injuries to Amir and Muhammad Khan P.Ws., along with others. Neither motive has been alleged against them nor were they alleged to have caused any injury to Mumtaz, who was the main target.
7. Since after their conviction by the Magistrate vide order, dated 30-3-1977, the petitioners remained in jail for undergoing R.I. Till they were released on their sentences having been suspended by this Court vide order, dated 16-11-1977. All three of them thus have already undergone 7-1/2 months' R.I. Each.
' Considering the period since the case is pending and the part played by them, I feel, the sentence already undergone plus a fine of Rs,500 for each count, for convictions under sections 326/149 and 452, P.P.C. Will meet the ends of justice. Order accordingly. In case of failure to pay the fine they will undergo R.I. For three months each, on each count. The revision petition stands disposed of.
' The petitioners are allowed thirty days' time to deposit the fine. In case they fail to deposit the fine within the stipulated time, they shall be caused to be arrested and lodged in jail for undergoing the sentence awarded in lieu of nonpayment of fine.