' Muhammad Sabir alongwith his brother Muhammad Anwar son of Allah Jiwaya faced trial for the charge under section 365/342/325/34, P.P.C. before Magistrate Ist Class, Jauharabad, District Khushab who vide judgment, jated 26-12-1982 convicted the appellant and his co-accused Muhammad Anwar and sentenced them to two years' R.I. each under section 365/342, P.P.C. and two years' R.I. under section 325/34, P.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The conviction and sentences of the petitioner were upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab who vide judgment, dated 20-3-1983 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as time-barred.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend's that the learned trial Court announced the judgment on 26-12-1982 on which date the petitioner was not present in the Court and, therefore, he was arrested on 12-2-1983. He submits that the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the judgment, therefore, the appeal could not be dismissed as time-barred.
3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State and perused the record carefully. The learned trial Court heard the arguments in the case on 19-12- 1982 on which date the petitioner was present in Court and the case was adjourned to 26-12-1982 for announcement of the judgment but the petitioner did not turn up on this date. He in fact was convicted in the case in hand on that date and arrested on 11-2-1983. The petitioner intentionally avoided to appear before the Court on 26-12-1982 and ultimately absconded, he, therefore, being fugitive from law A was not entitled to any concession or leniency.
4. Anyhow, while looking at the case on merits, there is no exception to the finding of the learned trial Court. The eye-witnesses are independent and confidence inspiring and there is nothing on the record to suggest that they deposed falsely against the petitioner. Further the ocular account also seeks enough corroboration from the evidence of recovery and the evidence available on record is more than sufficient to establish the charge against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel without seriously challenging the conviction of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted in 1982 and he is facing agony of the criminal case for the last about one decade. He prays that the sentence already undergone be considered sufficient in the facts of the case. Considering this aspect of the matter, I feel that there would be no useful purpose to send the petitioner to jail after such a long time, and, therefore, taking a lenient view reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone by him. With this modification this revision is dismissed.
Sentence reduced.