' The present criminal appeal calls into question the legality and propriety of the judgment, dated 14-12-1988, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, had convicted the appellants under section 148/!49, P.P.C. And sentenced them to one year's R.I. Each. He also convicted them under section 447/149, P.P.C. And sentenced them to three months' R.I. Each. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The appellants had been sent up for trial for the offences under section 307/148/149/382/440/452; P.P.C. To which they had pleaded not guilty; and to prove its case the prosecution had examined eight witnesses, namely, Ahmad Shah H.C. P.W.1, Muhammad Iqbal P.W.2, Bashir Khan P.W.3, Muhammad Wakeel Patwari P.W.4, Faqir Muhammad P.W.5, Barkat P.W.6., Mukhtar Ahmad A.S.I. P.W.7 and Muhammad Zafarullah Inspector P.W.8. The appellants had pleaded innocence in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. But had not produced any evidence in defence. However, the appellants were convicted and sentenced only under the provisions of sections 148/149 and 447/149, P.P.C. As stated above.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, submitted that he shall not challenge the conviction of the appellants and shall only contend for the reduction of their sentence to the period already undergon by them. Therefore, the evidence in the case need not to be discussed.
The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the instant case was a counterblast to the murder case registered against the complainant party for the murder of Muhammad Shafi deceased, who was the father of appellant No,1, Dais Muhammad; and that this fact by itself was sufficient to make out a case for reduction of sentences awarded to the appellants. Further submitted that the appellants had already suffered the agony of protracted trial for over 10 years, as the occurrence in question had taken place in 1982. Further submitted that they have already suffered some part of their imprisonment. Further submitted that the appellants were simple village folks and that they were neither previous convicts nor hardened criminals and it shall serve no useful purpose to send them back to the prison.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the State at length, it is deemed appropriate that it shall meet the ends of justice if while dismissing the present criminal appeal, the sentence awarded against the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them, in view of the facts and circumstances highlighted on behalf of the appellants by their learned counsel, as stated above.
5. In view of what has been stated above, the present criminal appeal is hereby dismissed, but the sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them.
The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.