Muhammad Khan and four others, petitioners, were tried under sections 447,148 and 149, P.P.C. By Magistrate Section 30, Jhang. The charge against the petitioners was that they trespassed into the land of Muhammad Ali and took forcible possession of the land and also dishonestly removed crop of Jawar.
2. The prosecution produced Muhammad Ayub Patwari P.W.1, Sher Muhammad P.W.2, Muhammad Ali P.W.3, Ghulam Muhammad S.I. (P.W.4) and Ali Muhammad P.W.5. Sher Muhammad P.W.2, Muhammad Ali P.W.3 and Ali Khan P.W.5 are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They have supported the allegations against the petitioners. Muhammad Ayub Patwari P.W.1 has proved the revenue papers Exh.P.1 and Exh. P.B. Ali Khan P.W.5 stated that the complainant had purchased the land from Kaley Khan, the original owner.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied all the incriminating circumstances. They raised the plea of false implication on account of enmity.
4. On the conclusion of the trial, the petitioners were convicted under section 447/149, P.P.C. And sentenced to two months' R.I. And a fine of Rs.200 and under section 148, P.P.C. To one month's R.I.
With the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. The appeal filed by them was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, on 3-12-1983.
5. No one has appeared for the petitioners. Since the revision, after having been admitted, cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. I find that the three eye-witnesses have fully supported the charge against the petitioners. The statements made by them do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The petitioners have not been able to rebut the prosecution case and the evidence produced by it. For these reasons, no exception can be taken to the conviction of the petitioners recorded by the learned trial Court.
6. As for the sentence, I find that the occurrence took place in the year 1980. The petitioners were sent to jail twice. After the rejection of their appeal, they remained in jail for eighteen days before they could be released on bail by this Court. In these circumstances, it may not be proper to send them back to serve the sentence of two months' R.I. After more than ten years of the occurrence. So the agony of the trial coupled with the imprisonment suffered by them would meet the case. Order accordingly.