Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Din and Abdul Razzaq alias Billu son of Inayat were convicted under section 325/34, P.P.C. By the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Faisalabad, on 11-11-1987 and were sentenced to 2 years' R.I. Each plus a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default thereof to suffer further R.I: for 3 months each. Appeal of the petitioners was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, on 3-7-1988. Both the convicts have filed separate revision petitions (Criminal Revision No.505 of 1988 and Criminal Revision No.394 of 1988) before this Court. I propose to dispose of both the matters together by this consolidated judgment.
2. Shortly stated, the facts are that a criminal case was registered against the petitioners on 5-8- 1985 with Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore. Allegation is that Muhammad Aslam was armed with a stick while Abdul Razzaq was empty---handed. Abdul Razzaq held the victim in his clasp whereupon Muhammad Aslam gave a stick blow on the nose of the victim. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Muhammad Ishfaq P.W.1, Asghar Ali P.W.2, Iftikhar Ahmad Peracha P.W.3, Muhammad Abbas P.W.4, Munir Ahmad P.W.5, Barkat Ali P.W.6 and Dr. Abdul Hameed P.W.7.
The petitioners denied the allegations against them and took the plea that they had been implicated in the case on account of enmity while making statements under section 342, Cr.P.C.
However, they did not lead any evidence in defence.
3. Learned counsel does not challenge the conviction and instead requests for taking a lenient view in the matter of awarding sentence to the petitioners. He has brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioners have so far suffered about 5-1/2 months in jail. According to the learned counsel, the sentence so far suffered by the petitioners is enough to meet the ends of justice. The learned State counsel does not oppose the prayer made by the learned counsel.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have seen the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Saee Muhammad v. Zulfiqar and others 1989 SCMR 690 and Baqir Shah v. State 1986 P Cr. L J 833. In the first case, the sentence awarded to the accused was two years and he had undergone only five months in jail. The High Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused. This quantum of sentence was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. Respectfully following the above-cited authority, I proceed to sentence the petitioners to the period already undergone by them by maintaining their conviction. The sentences of fine are also maintained. With this modification in the sentence, there is no substance in the revision petitions, which are dismissed.