TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J.- This revision petition is directed against the judgments dated 24.10.1992 and 27.7.1993 passed respectively by the Magistrate It Class and the Addl: Sessions Judge, Sialkot.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR (Ex.PA) was got recorded at the instance of Haji Muhammad Din PW implicating Mushtaq Ahmad along with his two sisters namely, Balqees and Abida causing injuries to Ghulam Murtaza son of the complainant. After usual investigation the challan was submitted. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in all to establish its case. The medical account was furnished by Dr. Arif Sheikh (PW.5) which is as under:-
1. Right lower 1st. Molar tooth is missing from its socket with laceration to the gun. There is laceration in the inner side of right cheek, with contused swelling. There is contusion in the outer side of cheek with swelling.
2. Lacerated wound 3 cm x cm x bone deep ON the right parietal region of head.
3. Lacerated wound 4 cm x cm x bone deep in the left parietal region of head.
4. Lacerated wound 3 cm x on the top of head.
Injury No. 1 was grievous while injuries No. 2, 3 and 4 were kept under observation, caused with blunt weapon. Ex.PB is the correct carbon of the medico legal report which bears his signatures. During cross-examination, he stated that the injuries No. 2,3 and 4 can be caused due to fall on had surface whereas injury No. 1 can be caused by a friendly had.
The ocular account was narrated by Ata Muhammad (PW.1), Muhammad Din complainant (PW.3) and Ghulam Murtaza the injured (PWA). When the accused was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C, he totally denied his participation and stated that he had been implicated out of enmity. The Magistrate 1st Class, through his judgment dated 13.10.1991 acquitted at the accused including the petitioner on the ground that there was contradiction in the statement of Medical Officer (PW.5) as well as the statement of Medical Superintendent Dr. Abdul Rashid (PW.7) who subsequently examined the injured on the application of the accused party. Against this acquittal, the complainant Haji Muhammad Din filed a revision petition and the Addl: Sessions Judge, Sialkot, through his order dated 9.4.92 accepted the same and remanded the case to the trial Court for his decision afresh after hearing the arguments of the parties.
3. In response to the remand order the matter was taken up by Mr. Sabt-i-Hasan Magistrate 1st Class who through his judgment dated 24.10.1992 convicted the petitioner along with her two sisters under sections 308/34 PPC. He sentenced the petitioner Mushtaq Ahmad to one year R.I. With a i.e of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of i.e he was to undergo one month S.I. The co- accused Balqees and Abida were sentenced to one year R.I. And were released on probation by furnishing bond of Rs. 10000/- with one surety each for a period of one year under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Addl: Sessions Judge, Sialkot, through his judgment dated 27.7.1993. However, he was given the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. Hence this Revision petition.
4. It is argued that there was a delay of more than 20 hours in the recording of FIR. The medical reports are contradictory. The medical report is not in line with the ocular account. It does not appeal to reason that the injured would loose his right 1st molar tooth without their being any injury on the adjacent teeth or to gum or absence of swelling. He has also stated that the Medical Officer as well as the Medical Superintendent both of them have not ruled out the possibility of self suffered.
5. The star point argued by the learned counsel is that the petitioner was not examined under section 340(2) pf the Cr.P.C, inspire of the fact that he earlier showed his inclination.
6. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the petitioner at the time of his making statement under section 342 Cr.P.C., made a statement that he would give statement under section 340(2) but subsequently he decided not to lead any evidence in support of his defence. On the other had learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the refusal to give defence version would not preclude the petitioner of his right to be examined under section 340(2) Cr.P.C.
7. After making submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he would not press his petition in the circumstances if the petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone. He has already served about four months of substantive part of his sentence apart from his pre-trial incarceration period of 19 days. This request has not been opposed seriously by the learned counsel for the State. In the circumstances, I. Dismiss this revision petition with a modification in the sentence. The period already undergone by the petitioner in my view would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. However, the amount of i.e is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5000/- and on its realization it shall be paid to the injured. In case of non-payment of i.e the petitioner shall suffer three months R.I.