Nusrat, petitioner, and Salabat (dead) were tried under section 307, P.P.C. For murderous assault on Noor Muhammad P.W.1.
2. The allegations were that they armed with sticks launched attack and caused injuries to Noor Muhammad on the eventful day. Dr. Asghar Ali P.W.4 medically examined Noor Muhammad. He found eleven injuries on his person. One of the injuries on the right scapula was declared grievous.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced eight witnesses. Noor Muhammad P.W.1 stated that the petitioner and his co-accused attacked and injured him with sticks. Fazal P.W.2, Ghulam Farid P.W.3 and Wali Muhammad P.W.6 are the eye-witnesses. They supported the statement of the complainant. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. He produced Humayun D.W.1 and Mst. Rani D.W.2.
5. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 15-11-1981, convicted the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced him to two years' R.I. The appeal riled by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, on 6-12-1982. However, the sentence of two years' R.I.
Was reduced to one and half years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.2,000.
6. No one has appeared for the parties. Since the revision, after having been admitted, cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case myself.
7. I feel that the petitioner could not have been convicted under section 307, P.P.C. For the reasons that the injuries were not declared dangerous to life; that the grievous injury was not on the vital part of the body of Noor Muhammad; that the Radiologist was not produced in proof of the fracture of the bone of Noor Muhammad P.W. So the petitioner could neither be convicted under section 307, P.P.C. Nor he could be convicted under section 325, P.P.C. For these reasons, the conviction of the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. Is set aside, instead he is convicted under section 323, P.P.C.
8. As far the sentence, I find that the petitioner was sent to jail thrice. 'The occurrence took place in the year 1979. After the rejection of his appeal, the petitioner remained in jail for more than two weeks before he could be released on bail by this Court in this revision. In these circumstances, I feel that the agony', of protracted trial coupled with the imprisonment suffered by him as an under--trial prisoner and as convict would meet the case. Order accordingly.