RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.--The petitioner, Zaman son of Shahamand, has moved this criminal revision under sections 435/439 Cr.P.C, challenging his conviction and sentence. The learned Magistrate Ist-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 PPC. 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 she 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 PW2, Ashiq PW1, Manzoor Hussain PW4 and Baqar PW7 were sleeping out-side the Haveli of complainant Muhammad Hayat. The complainant had tethered his cattle in his cattle-shed.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 appred him. The petitioner pulled out his knife from his Dabb and tried to cause injuries to Ashiq PW1. Hatchet blows were inflicted on the person of the petitioner and in this way he was over-powered 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 sections 380\411 PPC was registered on the same night. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Ashiq P.W.1, Muhammad Hayat PW2, Muhammad Amin PW3, Manzoor Hussain PW4, Shabhir Ahmad PW5,Allah Ditta PW6, Baqir PW7, Dr.Mukhtar Ahmad PW8 and Shahabul Shah SHO PW9. The petitioner while making a statement under section 342 Cr .P.C. Denied the allegation levelled against him.He produced Muhammad Yar DW1 and Muhammad Anwar DW2 in his defence. Muhammad Elahi ASI was examined as CW1, I am convinced that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.The petitioner was apprehended redhanded 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 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 is 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.