CH. GHULAM SARWAR, J.---This appeal is directed against judgment, dated 4-12-1991 passed by the learned Judge, Punjab Special Court No.VII, constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, Dera Ghazi Khan, by way of which he convicted the appellant under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo 7 years' R.I. With a fine of Rs.20,000 and in default of the payment to undergo one year's R.I. Half of the fine on its realisation was directed to be paid to Taj Muhammad injured P.W. As envisaged under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The appellant was bestowed with the compensation of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that Din Muhammad (P.W.4) got a case registered on 7-7-1990 vide F.I.R. Exh.P.E. Against the appellant, Saif-ud-Din acquitted co-accused and two others. It was alleged that on 7-7-1990 at about 9-00 a.m. The complainant aforementioned was informed by Niaz Ahmad and Wahid Bakhsh (given up P.Ws.) that the appellant, Saif-ud--Din acquitted accused), Muhammad Nawaz and Siddique accused (not challaned) were going towards Chur Navgan on quarrel with Taj Muhammad (P.W.3) where the latter was grazing his cattle. Upon receiving the information Habibur Rehman (P.W.5) Muhammad Azam, Abdur Rashid and Ashiq (given up P.Ws.) ran towards Chur Navgan when they reached near Kachal Karai Lath, they saw Shahab-ud-Din appellant coming/running from the mountains and he was being followed by other accused mentioned in the F.I.R, reaching Chur Navgan, the complainant saw injured lying and upon enquiry, the injured P.W. Narrated the facts that Shahab- ud-Din appellant fired four shots at him with China automatic rifle whereas he was being encouraged by other co-accused. On completion of the investigation, the challan against the appellant and acquitted co-accused Saif-ud-Din, was submitted in the Court of Political Agent, Dera Ghazi Khan from where the same was transmitted to the Special Court. On denial to the charge the prosecution evidence was summoned. As many as 7 P.Ws. Were recorded. The statement of both the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded. Both the challaned accused refused to appear as their own witnesses nor they led any defence evidence. Vide order impugned dated 4-12-1991 Saif-ud-Din accused was acquitted of the charge whereas the appellant was convicted and sentenced, in the terms mentioned above.
3. It was argued that all the P.Ws. Being closed relatives are interested witnesses and the trial Court erroneously believed the evidence on record qua the motive. It was also argued that no case under section 307, P.P.C. Was made out as the alleged victim of murderous assault was at the mercy of the assailants but they inflicted only one injury on his thigh which also on a non-vital part of the body and was also declared as simple in nature by the Medical Officer (P.W.1 (Mr. Mousa Kaleem).
Lastly it was argued that this case was registered on 7-7-1990 and the conviction was recorded against him on 4-12-1991 and till today the appellant has undergone the sentence for more than two years which in the given circumstances of this case is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
4. The learned A.A.-G. Appearing on behalf of the State readily accepted the last argument of the learned counsel for the appellant with the condition that the amount of fine should be enhanced in the case.
5. After having heard both the sides. We have also gone through the record of this Court very minutely. We agree with the learned trial Court that the prosecution to this case successfully brought home the guilt against the appellant as the same was proved to the hilt. Although all the P.Ws. Are closely related to the injured but that is not ground to discard their testimony. The motive set up by the prosecution has also corroborative value in this case and the eye-witness account furnished by the eye-witnesses is consistent, cogent and natural. The conviction and sentence therefore is based on 'good reason and cannot be set aside in the given circumstances of this case.
6. We find that the appellant was arrested on 7-7-1990 in this case. He remained in the jail for about more than five months and was released on bail. He was convicted by the learned trial Court on 4- 11-1991 and since then he is undergoing the sentence. The result therefore, is that the appellant has remained in the jail for more than two years and in our view the period under-went by him as under-trial prisoner and also as convict prisoner in this case is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. However, the sentence of fine as agreed by both the sides is enhanced from Rs.20,000 to Rs.35,000. On realisation this whole amount shall be paid to Taj Muhammad injured for the mental anguished caused to him.
7. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed and after maintaining the conviction we reduce the sentence of the appellant to the sentence already undergone by him.