The revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-6-1983 of Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal Filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 1-2-1983 of Magistrate Section 30 (Judicial), Faisalabad, whereof the learned Magistrate had convicted the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced him to R.I. For four years plus to pay a fine of Rs.10,000, in default whereof to undergo R.I. For six months.
Half of the fine, on realization, was directed to be paid as compensation to the injured P.W.
2. The prosecution case at the trial was that the petitioner, armed with a Chhuri, accompanied by Muhammad Afzal, armed with a Sota, and Abdul Rashid, armed with a revolver, had launched attack on Laeeq Ahmad P.W.2. The petitioner had given Chhuri blows on the Lalkara raised by his co-accused.
The motive behind the occurrence was dispute regarding the cutting of a tree on the common `Watt'.
3. At the trial, statements of 5 P.Ws. Were recorded which included eye--witnesses as well as the evidence of recovery of Chhuri at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner during his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Had denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. He had also examined two witnesses in defence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued the petition on merits. He has relied upon the compromise having been effected between the parties. In that regard he has not only submitted a written application on behalf of the complainant but has produced the complainant as well, whose statement has been recorded today.
5. Notwithstanding the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. I have gone through the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and I am convinced that no interference is called for in the judgment of conviction. No case for interference by way of exercise of revisional powers has been made out. The conviction under section 307, P.P.C. Is, therefore maintained.
6. The complainant and the injured P.W. Are real brothers. Petitioner is their first cousin. The compromise entered into between them seems to be genuine. The petitioner has already undergone 5-1/2 months' R.I. He had remained in jail for more than 2-1/2 months during trial as well.