' The petitioner, Zaman son of Shahmand, has moved this criminal revision under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. Challenging his conviction and sentence. The learned Magistrate 1st Class Section 30, Sargodha vide his judgment, dated 21-6-1978 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo two years' R.I. Under section 380, P.P.C. The petitioner went in appeal which was heard and partly accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha on 28-2-1979. The sentence of the petitioner was reduced from two years' R.I. To six months' R.I. By the learned appellate Court vide the same judgment.
2. Briefly, the allegations are that on 14-11-1974 Muhammad Hayat complainant, P.W.2, Ashiq P.W.1, Manzoor Hussain P.W.4 and Baqar P.W.7 were sleeping outside the Haveli of complainant Muhammad Hayat. The complainant had tethered his cattle in his cattleshed. On the night of occurrence, at about 9-00 p.m. All the witnesses mentioned above got up on account of the barking of their dogs and saw that the petitioner was present in their Haveli. The petitioner started running within their view while taking with him a sheep. The petitioner was chased by the witnesses and during this process, he left behind the sheep and continued running. The petitioner was, however, overtaken and the witnesses tried to apprehend him. The petitioner pulled out his knife from his Dabb and tried to cause injuries to Ashiq P.W.1. Hatchet blows were inflicted on the person of the petitioner and in this way he was overpowered by the witnesses. The sheep and the petitioner were brought back to the place of occurrence. Later on the petitioner was produced before the police at Police Station Cantt. Sargodha. Accordingly, a case under section 380/411, P.P.C.
Was registered on the same night. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Ashiq P.W.1, Muhammad Hayat P.W.2, Muhammad Amin P.W.3, Manzoor Hussain P.W.4, Shabbir Ahmad P.W.5, Allah Ditta P.W.6, Baqir P.W.7, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad P.W.8 and Shahabul Shah S.H.O. P.W.9. The petitioner while making a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegation levelled against him. He produced Muhammad Yar D.W.1 and Muhammad Anwar D.W.2 in his defence.
Muhammad Ellahi A.S.I. Was examined as C.W.1. I am convinced that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner was apprehended red-handed and recovery of sheep was effected from him. Thus, the case of the prosecution is established against the petitioner. There is no substance in the defence evidence produced by'd the petitioner and as such the same stands discarded. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and instead requested that his sentence may be reduced in the interest of justice. The learned Law Officer has also no objection if reduction in the sentence of the petitioner is made. The petitioner has already suffered about four months in jail. In the circumstances of the case, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. With this modification in the sentence, there is no substance in the revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. .