RAJA AFRASIAB, KHAN, J.--- Sami Ullah son of Ali Muhammad and Shafi Ullah son of Sher Khan were tried by- the learned Judge Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trial NO.VIII, Sargodha under section 392, P.P.C. They were accordingly convicted and sentenced to 7 years' R.I. Each plus a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For one year each on 12-12-1987. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was given to the convicts. The appellants have challenged their convictions and sentence by filing this appeal before this Court.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 16-5-1987 at 2-00 p.m. The appellants approached Muhammad Aslam P.W.1, a Taxi Driver of Car No.BR-9004, at Jauharabad Bus Stand and told him that they wanted to hire his Taxi Car for bringing their ailing aunt from village Ainoo to Niazi Hospital for her immediate treatment. The complainant agreed to shift the patient to the Hospital in his car. A sum of Rs.200 was settled to be paid by the accused as fare of the taxi-car. The accused took the taxi car to the village Ainoo. In the village, Shari Ullah alighted from the taxi and went towards the village. After a shortwhile he returned to disclose that his aunt had already been shifted to the above-said hospital. The complainant Muhammad Aslam took the appellants in his taxi car towards the Jauharabad-Bus-stand. The complainant had hardly covered about four miles from village Ainoo when at about 4 p.m. Sami Ullah appellant took out his revolver and placed [t at the neck of Muhammad Aslam and ordered him to stop his vehicle there and then. The car was accordingly stopped by the complainant. He while handing over the keys to Sami Ullah appellant, caught hold of his hand alongwith the revolver. Sami Ullah fired twice from his revolver. The bullets hit and pierced through the roof of the taxi. Sami Ullah also asked his co-accused Shafi Ullah to attack Muhammad Aslam with his Khanjar. On hearing this, the complainant left the hand of Sami Ullah. He ran away to save his life. The accused drove away the taxi car of the complainant. On an alarm, Muhammad IQbal P.W.2 accompanied by two other persons reached the spot. He narrated the incident to them. The witnesses chased the accused on their Tractor. After covering a distance of about one Killa, they found that the taxi car had already been stuck in the sand. On seeing the witnesses; Sami Ullah appellant pointed his revolver towards them and threatened that if they came near, he would shoot them. The driver hit both the accused with his tractor. Both the accused came down from the car. They were apprehended at the spot with their weapons. Leaving the accused in the custody of P.Ws., Muhammad Aslam complainant went to Police Station Jauhar Kalan where he lodged the F.I.R. About the occurrence. The police immediately reached the spot and arrested the appellants. The aforesaid weapons were taken into possession by the police.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Muhammad Aslam P.W.1, Ahmad Iqbal P.W.2 and Aman Ullah S.I. P.W.3. The appellants denied the allegations levelled against them in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. However, no evidence was led in support of their defence.
4. Learned counsel does not challenge the conviction recorded against the appellants. However, he states that the appellants have already completed about four years' imprisonment in jail. He prays that they may be sentenced to the period already undergone, by them. The learned State counsel does not oppose the request so made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for -the parties- and have read the record carefully. We are- convinced that the appellants were rightly convicted by the learned trial Court on the basis of trusthworthy and reliable evidence. The appellants were apprehended red-handed. The weapons were recovered from them. The evidence deposed by P.W.1 to P.W.3 inspires confidence. There are no reasons to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses. Even otherwise, the conviction of the appellants was not challenged by the learned counsel m these proceedings. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellants is l maintained. However, in view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties we are inclined to reduce the sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone by them. With this modification in the sentence, there is no substance in the appeal which is dismissed.