A complaint under section 323/148/149, P.P.C. Was instituted by Muhammad Rafique, complainant, against Bhap son of Fateh Muhammad, Saeed Ahmad son of Channan, Muhammad Yousaf son of Abdullah and Muhammad Yousaf son of Hameed, with the allegations that the accused while armed with sticks injured Mst. Faizan P.W.2 and Muhammad Rafique P.W.1. The learned A.C./S.D.M., Mankera, convicted and sentenced the petitioner and Saeed Ahmed to suffer six months' S.I. Each under section 323, P.P.C. Vide judgment, dated 28-9-1988. The remaining two accused, namely, Muhammad Yousaf son of Abdullah and Muhammad Yousaf son of Hameed, were also convicted but sentenced to a fine of Rs.500 each alone or in default thereof to suffer three months' S.I. Each.
The convicts went in appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, on 11-2-1990. The petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing this Criminal Revision No.105 of 1990.
2. Learned counsel does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and instead requests for taking a lenient view and that he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
Learned counsel says that the petitioner has so far served out about two months' sentence. The learned State Counsel is also of the view that the above sentence already suffered by the petitioner is enough to meet the ends of justice in the peculiar circumstances of the case. He, therefore, does not oppose the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The evidence deposed by Muhammad Rafique P.W.1 and Mst. Faizan P.W.2 has 'rightly been believed by the two learned Courts below. The said witnesses were injured and as such there appears no justification to disbelieve their evidence. In the circumstances, the petitioner was correctly convicted. Conviction of the petitioner has not been challenged by the learned counsel as observed above. The injuries of the witnesses are simple and are mostly in the nature of bruises and pain. In the circumstances, the sentence of two months already undergone by the petitioner would definitely meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. With this modification in the sentence, there is no substance in the revision petition which is dismissed.