Saeed Ahmad petitioner alongwith 4 others were tried under section 323/148/149, P.P.C. On the complaint filed by Muhammad Rafiq respondent. It was alleged that the petitioner and his co- accused caused injuries to Muhammad Rafiq complainant and his were on 30-10-1987. Saeed Ahmad gave Danda blow on the head of Mst. Hanifan Bibi, were of the complainant. The co- accused Bhup caused injuries on her hip and. Legs. Saeed Ahmad petitioner also inflicted injury to Muhammad Akhtar P.W. Abdul Karim and Muhammad Ali P.Ws. Saw the occurrence and rescued the complainant and the members of his family.
2. To prove its case, prosecution produced 5 witnesses. Muhammad Rafiq complainant P.W.1, Mst.
Hanifan P.W.2 and Muhammad Akhtar P.W.5 have supported the allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused. Muhammad Ali P.W.4 was an eye-witness of the occurrence. He did not support the prosecution case. Dr. Ehsanul Haq P.W.3 medically examined Muhammad Akhtar P.W.
He did not find any injury on him. However, Muhammad Akhtar complained pain in fingers of right hand and in the left hand. He found 2 injuries caused by blunt weapon on the person of Mst.
Hanifan. He found one bruise on the person of Muhammad Rafiq, who also complained pain in the chest and in the left thigh. The rest of the evidence was/is of formal nature.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances.
They did not produce any witness in defence. The trial Court acquitted Channan co-accused but convicted the petitioner and 3 others and sentenced the petitioner and Bhup to six months' R.I. And the co---accused namely Muhammad Yousaf son of Hamid and Muhammad Yousaf son of Abdullah, to a fine of Rs.500 in default thereof 3 months' S.I. Each. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge Bhakkar on 11-2-1990.
4. No one has appeared for the parties. Since revision after having been admitted cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case myself, I find that 3 injured witnesses have consistently stated that the petitioner had caused injuries to Mst. Hanifan and to Muhammad Akhtar P.W. I do not see any infirmity in the statements of the eye-witnesses. Muhammad Ali denied to have seen the occurrence. The statements of the 3 eve-witnesses remain intact. The medical evidence supports the injuries found on the person of injured P.Ws. For these reasons, no exception can be taken to the conviction of the petitioner under section 323, P.P.C.
5. This brings me to the question of sentence. The petitioner was sent to jail twice. After the rejection of appeal he remained in jail for one month before he could be released on bail by this Court in this revision. I feel that the occurrence took place in the year 1987. So, the agony of trial coupled with the imprisonment suffered by the petitioner as under-trial prisoner and as convict would meet the case. Order accordingly.