' Muhammad Nawaz, Azam son of Dost Muhammad, Hayat son of Muglial, Aslam, Azam son of Muhammad, Hayat son of Sardara and Mukhtar Ahmad were tried under section 307/452/325/148/149, P.P.C. by Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha. Learned Magistrate vide judgment, dated 22-5-1984 convicted all of them under sections 307/149, 452/149 and 148, P.P.C. and awarded sentences as follows:--- Under section 307/149, P.P.C.R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default whereof each to undergo R.I. for three months.
Under section 452/149, P.P.C.Each to undergo R.I. for two years.
Under section 148, P.P.C.Each to undergo R.I. for one year. Fine of Rs.7,000, on recovery has been .directed to be paid as compensation to Sultan P.W.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Sentence of one year's R.I. awarded to Azam son of Dost Muhammad under the Arms Ordinance and-the sentence of one year's R.I. awarded to Hayat son of Moghal under the Arms Ordinance, were directed to run concurrently with the sentences awarded to them in the main case.
3. The convicts have filed appeal.
4. The prosecution case at the trial was that Nawaz, Aslam, Hayat son of Sardara and Azam son of Muhammad armed with Sotas, Mukhtar armed with hatchet and Hayat son of Moghal and Azam son of Dost Muhammad armed with guns had entered the Dera of the complainant in village Bhabra, at a distance of 14 miles from Police Station Kot Momen, District Sargodha, at 3-00 a.m. on 16-1--1982, and had launched attack on Sultan and Ahmad P.Ws. They were inflicted injuries by the accused other than the two, armed with guns. The accused armed with guns had also fired one shot each but luckily no one was injured.
5. F.I.R. was lodged on the same day by Muhammad Batin P.W. at 2 p.m.
6. Statements of 11 P.Ws. were recorded at the trial. Apart from Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad, who had medically examined the injured P.W., Muhammad Batin (P.W.4) who had lodged the F.I.R., Sultan (P.W.5) who had suffered injuries and Hayat son of Abdul Karim (P.W.9) were examined as eye- witnesses.
Investigating Officer and the witnesses who had attested the recoveries were also examined.
7.' Eye-witnesses corroborated the version of the prosecution given in the F.I.R. by Muhammad Batin P.W.
8. The appellants during statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence., Ahmad P.W. who had suffered injury during the occurrence appeared in defence. In that although, he did not deny that the attack was launched in their house and he alongwith Sultan had suffered injuries yet he denied to have identified any of the assailants. During cross---examination also, he denied that the accused being tried had launched attack on them.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset did not challenge the convictions of the appellants on any count. He however, prayed for reduction of their sentences to that already undergone on the ground that Sultan P.W. who had suffered injuries during the occurrence, and Muhammad Batin P.W., who had lodged the F.I.R. had compromised with the appellants and had forgiven them. Learned counsel stated that their affidavits in that regard were placed on the record alongwith the petition for suspension of sentences of the appellants and that they are on record.
10. Notwithstanding the fact that the learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the convictions of the appellants, I have gone through the evidence and I am convinced that no ground for interference in the impugned judgment in so far as it pertains to the convictions is made out. The convictions of the appellants on all counts are, therefore, maintained.
11. The statement of the learned counsel for the appellants that the parties had compromised not only finds support from the affidavits of Muhammad Batin and Sultan Ahmad which are on record but the fact is also borne out from the order, dated 5-9-1984 passed by my learned brother Ijaz Nisar, J., while allowing the petition for suspension of sentences of the appellants. Although Muhammad Batin and Sultan Ahmad have not been produced for making statements but the evidence of their having compromised with the appellants on record is sufficient for reduction of the sentences of the appellant to that of already undergone. They, had undergone sentences of about 3-1 /2 months' R.I. each before being released on bail and had remained in jail during trial as well. In the circumstances, the sentences of the appellants are reduced to that of already undergone. The sentences of fine of Rs.1,000 each for conviction under section 307/149, P.P.C. are reduced to Rs.200 each. In default of non-payment of the fine, each will undergo S.I. for two months.
The Fine shall be deposited within 45 days. In case of failure to deposit the amount of fine within the stipulated period, they shall be caused to be arrested through non-bailable warrants and lodged in jail, to undergo the sentences awarded in lieu of non-payment of the fine.
Learned counsel for the appellants has taken responsibility to inform the appellants to deposit their fines. Office shall also supply them information. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.