The petitioners alongwith others, were tried for murderous assault on Hakim Ali complainant, Mst.
Sharifan, Ilam Din and Abdul Hameed P.Ws. Riaz petitioner allegedly gave Barchhi blow to Ilam Din P.W. Munir co-accused caused Datar injury on the head of Ilam Din P.W. Ghulam Rasool petitioner injured Mst. Sharifan.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced seven witnesses. Hakim Ali P.W.2, Mst. Sharifan P.W.3 and Ilam Din P.W.4 are the injured witnesses. They stated that the petitioners and their co-accused had launched attack and injured them. Allah Ditta P.W.7 was the eye-witness of the occurrence. He did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. Dr. Abdul Majid Khan had medically examined the injured witnesses. He has proved the medico-legal reports. 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 produced Hayat Muhammad D.W.1 and Muhammad Ishaq D.W.2, who stated that they had not heard any incident of assault on the injured P.Ws.
4. The trial Court convicted Riaz, Munir and Ghulam Rasool under section 324/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to six months' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default thereof one month's R.I. On appeal, the learned Appellate Court acquitted Munir but upheld the conviction and sentence of Riaz and Ghulam Rasool vide its judgment dated 7-12-1982. Feeling aggrieved thereby Riaz Ahmad and Ghulam Rasool filed revision, which was admitted on 9-1-1983 only to the extent of the sentence of Riaz Ahmad.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already caused simple injuries to Ilam Din P.W. And in the circumstances of the case he is entitled to leniency in the matter of sentence. The learned counsel for the State has opposed him.
6. I have considered the matter carefully. I rind that the occurrence took place in the year 1975; that the petitioner was sent to jail thrice; that he allegedly caused one injury to Ilam Din P.W. And that after the rejection of his appeal on 7-12-1982, he was allowed bail by this Court in this revision on 9- 1-1983. In these circumstances, 1 feel that the agony of protracted trial coupled with the imprisonment suffered by him as under-trial prisoner and as a convict would meet the case. Order accordingly.