Zulfiqar, Hayat, Anwar A.I, Farid and Muhammad Bakhsh were tried under sections 148 and 307/149, P.P.C. By the Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Jhang, who by his judgment, dated 7-5-1988, acquitted Muhammad Bakhsh of both the charges but convicted Zulfiqar, Hayat, Anwar A.I and Farid under section 323/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for six months each. They were also ordered to pay Rs.500 each as compensation to injuries P.W Agha Hussain. They challenged their conviction and sentence in the Sessions Court but their appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment, dated 18-3-1989. They have come up in revision to this Court to question the correctness and propriety of the aforesaid orders.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25-6-1985 at about 2--30 p.m. Agha Hussain P.W. Alighted from a bus at bus-stand Chhabeel. The petitioners and their co-accused Muhammad Bakhsh, armed with sticks, were sitting there near a shop. On seeing him, Muhammad Bakhsh alias Gadi raised a Lalkara that he should be done away with as he was playing with their honour and simultaneously gave him a Sota blow on his head. Anwar petitioner gave him a Sota blow on the back. Then Gadi put a piece of cloth around his neck and Gadi and Anwar pulled it in opposite directions with a view to strangulate him. Zulfiqar, Farid and Hayat petitioners gave him several Sota blows hitting his arm, back and buttocks. Shahadat and Molazam Hussain P.Ws. Saw the occurrence and rescued Agha Hussain from the accused persons. A suspicion of illicit relations between Agha Hussain and the wife of Farid petitioner is stated to be the motive for this offence.
After the occurrence, Khadim Hussain, father of Agha Hussain, reported the occurrence to Ejaz Ahmad, Head Constable, at Gojra Phatak, Jhang, at 10 p.m. Vide his statement Exh.P.A. On the basis of which formal F.1.R. Exh.P.A./1, was recorded at Police Station Sadar Jhang at 10-20 p.m. After the usual investigation, the petitioners and their co-accused Muhammad Bakhsh were sent up under sections 148 and 307/149, P.P.C.
3. Agha Hussain was medically examined on the same day. There were twelve injuries on his person, caused by blunt weapon. All the injuries were declared simple in nature.
4. At the trial, Agha Hussain, Shahadat and Molazam Hussain P.Ws. Supported the prosecution version, as detailed above.
5. The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge. Farid petitioner denied having caused any injury to Agha Hussain. The other petitioners, however, admitted that there was a suspicion that Agha Hussain was having illicit relations with the wife of Farid petitioner. They denied having caused injuries with Sotas and maintained that they had given only fist blows.
6. Relying on the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Magistrate convicted the petitioners as mentioned above. He, however, acquitted Muhammad Bakhsh accused by giving him the benefit of doubt.
7. At the preliminary hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners did not challenge the conviction, and this revision petition was admitted only to consider the question of sentence.
Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances of the case the sentence is excessive. The learned State counsel has supported the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate.
8. At the trial Agha Hussain (P.W.2), Shahadat (P.W.3) and Malazim Hussain (P.W.4) supported the prosecution version. Having gone through the evidence on the record, I am satisfied that the petitioners have been rightly convicted under section 323/34, P.P.C.
9. The question of sentence requires consideration. All the injuries on the person of Agha Husain were simple m nature. It is prosecution's own case that Agha Husain was suspected for illicit relations with the wife of Farid petitioner. The occurrence took place on 25-6-1985. Anwar A.I, Farid, Hayat, petitioners, and acquitted accused Muhammad Bakhsh were formally arrested on 22-7- 1985 and Zulfiqar petitioner on 25-6-1985. The challan was submitted in Court on 8-5--1986 and the petitioners were convicted on 7-5-1988. Their appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 18-3-1989 and they are in jail since then. In this way, besides facing the agony of a prolonged trial for two years, they have already undergone rigorous imprisonment for one month each. In view of the nature of injuries and the motive alleged by the prosecution, which has been admitted by the petitioners, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is excessive. 1n the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that the term of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners and a fine of Rs.500 each will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice, and I order accordingly. The order regarding payment of compensation is, however, maintained. In default of payment of fine the petitioners will undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
N.H.Q./Z-98/L