' The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that a case under section 324, P.P.C., was registered against the petitioners. They were tried by a Magistrate First Class, Jhang, who convicted them to one year's R.I. Each and a fine of Rs,500 each, for an offence under section 324, P,P.C. They filed an appeal against their conviction and sentences but the same was dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, vide his judgment dated 21-6-1989.
' It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that according to P.W.1, he had not witnessed the occurrence. Submits that P.W.2 being a close relation of the injured could not be relied upon.
Asserts that the nature of the injury as observed by the doctor could not be the result of a Kassi blow.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through, the evidence with his assistance. All the witnesses are unanimous that the petitioners were present at the spot and had caused injuries to them. Both the Courts below had discussed the evidence and given cogent reasons for not relying upon the evidence. I do not find any justification for not agreeing to the findings arrived at by both the Courts below. The contention of learned counsel that the injuries in question could be self- suffered is also without force because the doctor in his statement had specifically ruled out the possibility of injuries being self-suffered. Since there is neither any misreading of evidence nor any illegality has been pointed out, therefore, I find no merits in the revision which is accordingly dismissed.