' Rajada, Sajjada, Zulfiqar, Rehmat and four others were tried under sections 307, 324, 325, 326 and 148/149, P.P.C. For murderous assault and for causing grievous injuries with blunt and sharp-edged weapons to Khushi Muhammad P.W.2 on 28-9-1980 at 4-00 a.m. In village Chandar Kot of Police Station, Nankana Sahib.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced six witnesses. Muhammad Shafi P.W.1, Khushi Muhammad P.W.2 and Muhammad Yousuf P.W.3 have given the ocular account of the occurrence.
Khushi Muhammad P.W. Stated that the petitioners and his co-accused launched attack on him at the evenful time and caused him injuries with their respective weapons. Muhammad Shafi P.W.1 and Muhammad Yousaf P.W.3 supported him. Dr. Muhammad Akhtar Hussain Chattha P.W.6 medically examined Khushi Muhammad P.W. And found six injuries on his person. Out of the six injuries, three were found grievous. 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 did not produce any evidence in defence. They did not appear to depose on oath in disproof of the charges against them.
4. The trial Court convicted the petitioners and their co-accused under section 307/149, P.P.C. And sentenced to four years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default thereof six months' R.I. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, acquitted the four co-accused and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under section 307/149 reduced the sentence from four years' R.T. To three years' R.I. And fine from Rs, 5,000 to Rs,2,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I. Each; hence this petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submited that the occurrence took place in the dark hours of the night and the identity of the offenders was/is doubtful; that the eye-witnesses are closely related inter se and that about 20/30 independent persons had seen the occurrence, but none of them has been produced by the prosecution. In the alternative, he requested for leniency in sentence. The learned counsel for the State has opposed him.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that from the statements made by Khushi Muhammad injured P.W., Muhammad Yousaf P.W.3 and Dr. Muhammad Akhtar Hussain P.W.6, it is very much clear that the petitioners had launched murderous assault on the victim of crime (Khushi Muhammad P.W.2) and had given him six injuries including three grievous injuries. The injuries have specifically been attributed to Rajada, Zulfiqar and Rehmat petitioners. Rajada gave a hatchet blow on the right leg of Khushi Muhammad P.W. 2, Zulfiqar inflicted a hatchet blow on the left leg of P.W.2 and Rehmat inflicted injuries on the back of the hand of P.W.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any legal infirmity in the statements of the eye-witnesses. The eye-witnesses are quite dependable. They have made consistent statements against the petitioners. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any material contradictions, major discrepancies or dishonest improvements in their statements. The medical evidence supports the oral testimony. The eye-witnesses had no serious enmity to involve the petitioners falsely or to attribute false part to them. The petitioners were previously known to the eye-witnesses and, as such, there was no difficulty in the identification of the petitioners even in the dark night. The location of the injuries of Khushi Muhammad and the weapons used by the offenders will show that the assailants' were close to the victim at the time of the infliction of the injuries. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the petitioners have rightly been convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C.
7. This brings me to the question of sentence. I have considered this question with utmost care on my part. I feel that in the circumstances that the occurrence took place in the year 1980; that the petitioners were sent to jail thrice; that they remained in jail for five months as under-trial prisoners and as convicts, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I feel that it may not be proper to send them back to jail after about 10 years of the occurrence. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has offered to compensate the injured P.W. In this view of the matter, I feel that instead of sending back the petitioners to jail after ten years of the occurrence, it would be in the fitness of things that the remaining sentence of imprisonment is altered into the sentence of fine.
So the remaining sentence of imprisonment is set aside and the petitioners are sentenced to a fine of Rs,10,000 each with the direction that the same when deposited be paid to Khushi Muhammad P.W. 2 as compensation. So the petitioners will deposit the fine within two months from today failing which the trial Court shall issue warrants for their arrest. When arrested, they will be sent to jail to serve the sentence of imprisonment in lieu of fine. Disposed of accordingly.