1. ' This petition is directed against the judgment dated 11-2-1990 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Okara whereby he accepted the revision petition of Nazar Hussain respondent No,2 to the extent that he maintained the sentence of two years awarded to the petitioners under section 452, P.P.C.
2. But fined them to Rs,1,000 each and in default in payment of fine they were ordered to undergo 6 months' R.I. However, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Magistrate under section 307, P.P.C.
3. Was enhanced from two years to five years, with a fine of Rs,2,000 each and in default in payment of fine they were further ordered to undergo R.I. For one year. Rs,5,000 was ordered to be paid as compensation and in default of the same to further undergo R.I. For 6 months each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. ' The facts briefly are that the present petitioners alongwith their acquitted co-accused Muhammad Nawaz were involved in a case registered against them vide F.I.R. No,155/87 at Police Station Basirpur under section 307/326/452/34, P.P.C. For injuring Muhammad Hanif Shah.
5. ' The allegation was that all the petitioners alongwith their acquitted co-accused armed with lethal weapons came across Muhammad Hanif Shah while he was grazing his cow at the tube-well.
6. Ashraf Shah petitioner fired from his shotgun which missed the target. Hanif Shah took to his heels after seeing the assailants and bolted himself into the house of his father-in-law Shah Muhammad P.W. The assailants followed him and broke open the door. They injured him with their respective weapons causing 8 injuries on his person three of which were grievous in nature.
7. ' The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to establish its case. The ocular account was established in its material particulars by P.Ws. The learned trial Magistrate believed the prosecution version and convicted the petitioners under sections 452 and 307, P.P.C. And sentenced them to two years' R.I.
8. Each on both counts. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners did not challenge their conviction.
9. ' The complainant filed revision petition and the learned Sessions Judge, Okara vide his impugned judgment dated 11-2-1990 enhanced the sentences of the petitioners as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. He took into account the nature of the evidence, the role attributed to the petitioners and the extent of damage caused by them to the injured. The argument that the learned Sessions Judge did not have the power to enhance the sentence is devoid of any force. In Amir Khan v. The State PLD 1982 Pesh. 34, a Division Bench held that in the exercise of power under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge has got the same power as that of the High Court and can pass any sentence provided under the law. In this precedent case, the trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced him to one year's R.I. And on revision the learned Additional Sessions Judge enhanced the sentence to that of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,50,000. The learned Judges of the Peshawar High Court while conceding the power of enhancement to the learned Additional Sessions Judge had held that the sentences imposed by the trial Magistrate was ridiculously low while the sentence inflicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was too much excessive, meaning thereby that none of them while inflicting the punishment acted justly and equitably. Resultantly, the learned Judges in exercise of their power under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Reduced the sentence to 5 years' R.I. And also reduced the fine to Rs,3,000. Similarly, in Shahadat Hossain Choudhury and another v. The State 1971 SCMR 23 while declining leave to appeal against enhancement of sentence by the High Court from one year to two years in an offence under section 326, P.P.C. Under its suo motu jurisdiction, the Supreme Court observed that no illegality had been committed for imposing enhanced sentence which having regard to the facts of the case, were even now on the lenient side.
10. In the present case the sentence awarded to the petitioners did not commensurate with their guilt.
11. Two years' sentence under section 307, P.P.C. When the injured suffered as many as 8 injuries resulting in the loss of his leg cannot be termed as proper and legal. The practice of awarding lesser sentence was not approved by the Supreme Court in Malik Muhammad Khan v. The State PLD 1987 SC 500 and it was observed that:-- "Once the Court finds that the offence has been proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicts him of that offence, then there is no reason whatsoever of showing the culprits any leniency."
12. In case the guilt is proved, the lenient view of awarding the sentence shall only be taken for good reasons. In this case the injured has lost his leg permanently and the sentence of two years under section 307, P.P.C. Is nothing but a mockery on the provisions of section 307, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order. Hence I dismiss the petition in limine.