The revision petition is directed against the order dated 9-7-1983 of Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4--6-1983 of M.I.C., whereof the learned M.I.C. Had convicted the petitioner under section 452/324, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo R.I. For three years under section 452, P.P.C. And R.I. For two years under section 324, P.P.C. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case at the trial was that Mst. Bushra Parveen P.W.2 was cleaning courtyard of the house at 12 noon on 17-4-1981. The petitioner entered into her house and demanded keys of the boxes. On her refusal, he brought out a Chhuri from the fold and inflicted injuries to her. Tariq and Anwar P.W s. Arrived at the spot hearing the noise raised by Mst. Bushra Parveen upon which the accused ran away.
3. Mst. Bushra on being medically examined was found injured with the sharp-edged weapon.
Duration of the injuries tallied with the time of occurrence. Although Muhammad Anwar did not support the prosecution case yet Tariq fully corroborated the statement made by Mst. Bushra Parveen. Evidence of recovery of Chhuri at the instance of the petitioner was led at the trial. The doctor who had medically examined Mst. Bushra had also appeared.
4. The petitioner although denied the prosecution case as a whole yet he did not produce any evidence in defence nor had he made statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. Was lodged after seven hours delay and that the statement of Tariq P.W. Should not have been relied upon by the lower Courts for being Mohallahdar of Mst. Bushra Parveen has not impressed me at all. Registration of the case after seven hours which had occurred in the village cannot be termed as a delayed one.
The mere fact of Tariq being a Mohallahdar, as well is no ground to discard his statement, rather he is to be accepted as a natural witness on that account. There was no enmity between the parties prior to that occurrence. In fact, none was suggested.
6. The stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since Mst. Bushra was not cross- examined on behalf of the petitioner, her statement should not have been read as an evidence against him also, in my view, is not well placed. In that, an opportunity was given to the accused to cross-examine her. His counsel did not turn - up. The grievance of the counsel that the application submitted on behalf of the petitioner to summon Mst. Bushra for cross---examination was not allowed also, does not advance the case of the petitioner. There is neither misappreciation of the evidence nor has a case of illegality been made out warranting interference by way of exercise of revisional powers. The convictions of the petitioner under section 452/324, P.P.C. Are maintained.
However, considering the fact that since a long period has passed, I am inclined to allow the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for reduction in the sentences. The sentence of 3 years' R.I. Awarded to the petitioner under section 452, P.P.C. Is reduced to R.I. For on year. Similarly, the sentence of two years' R.I. Awarded to the petitioner under section 324, P.P.C. Is reduced to R.I.
For one year. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The petitioner shall be given the benefit of the provision of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. As well.
The petitioner is on bail. The same stands cancelled. He shall be caused to be arrested through non bailable warrants and lodged in jail to undergo the remaining sentences.