' Muhammad Hussain, Fateh Muhammad and Muhammad Hayat, the petitioners herein, were tried by Magistrate 1st Class, Hafizabad, for making an assault and causing injuries to Bashir Ahmad (P.W.), the son of the complainant Shabbir Ahmad, in furtherance of their common intention in the area of Kot Said Muhammad on 30-1-1985 and were convicted under section 325/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer one and a half years' R.I. Each, oy him vide judgment, dated 11-1-1986.
2. The prosecution story, in brief as per the F.I.R. (Exh.PA.) recorded by Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.I.
(P.W.6) at the instance of Shabbir Ahmad, the complainant (P.W.1) is that three years before the date of occurrence, the grandfather of the complainant purchased 12-1/2 acres of land from Bashir Ahmad etc. The sons of Sardara, and before this transaction, Hayat Muhammad had also purchased 12-1/2 Acres of land from the said Sardar Muhammad. Hayat Muhammad filed a pre- emption suit against the complainant-party in the Court of Civil Judge, Hafizabad. When on 30-3- 1984, the complainant was present at his Dera, Hayat Muhamamd etc. Came there and gave a beating to him (complainant). On the intervention of the respectables of the village, the complainant did not initiate any proceedings against them. On 28-1-1985, Hayat Muhammad, Muhammad Hassan, Fateh Muhammad sons of Dost Muhammad threatened the complainant with dire consequences in case they (the complainant party) pursued the pre-emption suit filed by the above-said Hayat Muhammad. On 30-1-1985, at about 5-00 in the morning, Bashir Ahmad was present at the cattleshed, when Hayat Muhammad armed with a hatchet, Muhammad Hussain and Fateh Muhammad armed with Sotas came there and raised Lalkara that they would teach a lesson to pursue the pre-emption suit and attacked the father of the complainant; Hayat Muhammad gave a hatchet blow hitting the complainant's father at his left leg; Muhammad Hussain gave a Sota blow on his right arm; Fateh Muhammad also gave a blow with the Sota hitting him on the left side of the belly, and he fell down. The alarm raised by the complainant, attracted the P.Ws., who witnessed the occurrence. The injured was removed to the Dispensary Waneki Tarrar, and the Doctor gave him the result and sent the injured to Hafizabad Hospital, where he was admitted for medical treatment. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the F.I.R., with the Police Station Waneky Tarrar and after due investigation, the accused petitioners were challaned to Court to face their trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined six P.Ws., namely, Shabbir Ahmad, complainant (P.W.1), Muhammad Bashir, the injured (P.W.2), Habib Ullah (P.W.3), Muhammad Yar (P.W.4) Dr. Captain Khalid Farooq, M.O. (P.W.5) and Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.I. (P.W.6).
4. In their statements under section 342 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied the prosecution case and pleaded that they were innocent. They also appeared in their defence under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In disproof of the charges against them, besides producing Muhammad Akbar (D.W.4), Muhammad Inayat (D.W.5), Hayat (D.W.6) and another Hayat (D.W.7).
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioners as indicated above. They preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, who, while upholding the conviction of the petitioners, reduced their sentence as under:-- "1 year's R.I. With a fine of Rs,1,000 each or in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For 3 months each under section 325/34, P.P.C.; ' 1 year's R.I. With a fine of Rs,1,000 each or in default to suffer further R.I. For 3 months each under section 324/34, P.P.C.; and ' 1 year's R.I. With a fine of Rs,1,000 each and in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For 3 months each under section 323/34, P.P.C.; ' all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently except the sentence of fine, which if recovered, was to be paid in toto to the injured witness, vide his judgment, dated 12-3-1986. Hence, the present revision petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not seriously attacked the conviction of the petitioners but submitted that the petitioners have already undergone 3 months 21 days of their sentence; and that they have been facing the agony of trial for the last about 6 years and the sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice and the same may be treated as sufficient. Regarding fine, he submits that it being heavy, may be reduced, as the monetary condition of the petitioners was not sound. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, while pressing for maintaining the conviction, however, concedes on the point that in the circumstances of the case, the sentence already undergone would be appropriate. In this view of the matter, I, while upholding the conviction of the petitioners, reduce their sentences to the one already undergone by them. I also deem fit in the circumstances of the case to reduce their sentence of fine to that of Rs,500 each on each count or in default one month's further R.I. Each; fine if recovered to be paid to the injured witness.
'The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sentence reduced. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.