Hamid Khan petitioner alongwith his father Faiz Khan and brother Liaqat Khan were tried by Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad under section 307/34, P.P.C. On the charge of murderous assault on Altaf Hussain P.W.1 and Mujtahid Hussain P.W.3 on 12-11-1975 at 8-00 p.m. In Chak No.68/J.B.
Faisalabad.
2. To prove its case, prosecution produced seven witnesses. Altaf Hussain P.W.1, Khizar Hussain P.W.2, Mujtahid Hussain P.W.3 and Inamul Haq P.W.7 are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Altaf Hussain and Mujtahid Hussain stated that Faiz Muhammad armed with lathi, Hamid Khan with hatchet and Liaqat Khan with hatchet attacked and caused them injuries at the eventful time.
Khizar Hussain P.W.2 and Inamul Haq P.W.7 have claimed to seen the 3 accused causing injuries with their weapons on Altaf Hussain and Mujtahid Hussain P.Ws. Dr. A.A. Khalid medically examined the injured P.Ws. On 12-11-1975. He found 4 injuries on the person of Mujtahid Hussain. Out of these injuries two were caused with sharp-edged weapon and others with blunt weapon. Injury No.3, which was on the forehead was dangerous to life. The doctor found 7 injuries on the person of Altaf Hussain, One of the injuries was caused by sharp-edged weapon and the rest with blunt weapon.
All these injuries were simple in nature. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioners denied all the incriminating circumstances. They produced Sher Khan D.W.I, Muhammad Sharif D.W.2, Noor Din D.W.3, Manzoor Ahmad D.W.4 and Muhammad Shafiq D.W.5 in defence. Sher Khan D.W.1 and Muhammad Shafiq D.W.5 stated that Mujtahid Hussain and Altaf Hussain were injured by one insane person namely Aqil. Muhammad Sharif D.W.2 simply stated that he had not seen the occurrence. Noor Din D.W.3 stated that he took away Faiz Khan and his son Aqil with him. Manzoor Ahmad D.W.4 stated that there was a fight between Aqil and Zahid and his brother and that when the police came to the place of occurrence, it took away Aqil with it. On the conclusion of the trial, Hamid petitioner and the co-accused were convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default thereof 3 months' R.I. Each with the direction that the fine when recovered half of it be paid to the injured P.Ws. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge converted the conviction of Faiz Khan and Liaqat Khan from sections 307 to 323 and 324, P.P.C. Respectively and sentenced them to imprisonment already undergone by them. However, he maintained the conviction and sentence of Hamid Khan petitioner. Feeling aggrieved thereby Hamid Khan filed this revision petition on 26-5-1982. While admitting this revision to regular hearing, notice for the enhancement of sentence was also issued to the petitioner. Through this single judgment, I propose to dispose of the Revisions Nos.297 and 298 of 1982.
4. No one has appeared for the petitioner. It seems to me that since he had already served out the entire sentence, so, he is no more interested in revision against his conviction. Since after the admission, the revision cannot be dismissed for non-appearance, so I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. I find that 4 eye-witnesses have supported the allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused. I do not see any infirmity in their statements. The medical evidence supports them. The defence version of substitution is ridiculous on its face. There were many injuries on the person of two injured P.W. Caused by different weapons. The defence version that one insane person had injured both the witnesses stands falsified by the number and the nature of the injuries. One of the injuries found on the head of Mujtahid Hussain was dangerous to life. So no exception can be taken to the conviction of Hamid petitioner under section 307, P.P.C.
5. In view of the notice for enhancement, I have considered the question of enhancement of the sentence of the petitioner with utmost care. I do not feel inclined to enhance the sentence after more than 10 years of the occurrence, particularly when the petitioner has suffered the agony of protracted trial and has also served out the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court. For what has been said above, both the Revisions are dismissed.