' Ghulam Rasul and Gohar sons of Shukar Din, were tried under section 332/379/34, P. P. C. By Syed Agha Haider, Magistrate, First Class, Gujranwala, who vide his judgment dated 30-11-1965, convicted and sentenced them to six months' R. I. Each on each of the two counts. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. They filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, who vide his judgment dated 12-1-1965, partially accepted their appeal and while setting aside their conviction under section 379/34, P. P. C. Maintained their conviction under section 332/34, P. P. C. But reduced the sentence from six months' R. I. To three months' K.
1. Each.
2. Hence, this revision petition on their behalf which was admitted on 24-2-1966 by this Court and the petitioners were released on bail. It will be of advantage to mention at this stage of the case that the petitioners in all have suffered one month and 26 days is confinement in the following terms ;- 8 days remained in police custody during remand. 6 days after their conviction by the trial Court, one month and 12 days, when ultimately they were released on bail by this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as State and have perused the record of the case carefully with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that delay in this case was fatal as it would lend advantage to the complainant party to deliberate and ponder. It has also been submitted by him that Muhammad Yousaf P. W according to the observation of the learned Sessions Judge, had damaged the case of the prosecution, therefore, this was case of no evidence.
4. I am afraid these contentions are without any substance. Delay in this case stands fully explained as the perusal of the report submitted by the complainant, was written on the same day i,e, 17-6-1965 at 10-00 a. m. And was forwarded to the District Health Officer at the Headquarters Gujrawale which was again endorsed on 1e-6.1965 for necessary action to the police, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified to hold that the delay in this case was hardly of any significance.
5. While adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observation of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the damage caused by Muhammad Yousaf to the case of the prosecution was itself sufficient to show that there was case of no evidence, it would be sufficient to say that unfortunately the word "damage" was not happily worded in context of the real intention of the learned sessions Judge. What the learned Sessions Judge meant was that Muhammad Yousaf by stating that he was the only witness who had witnessed the occurrence, had in fact excluded the testimony of other eye-witnesses and thus in a way had denuded the prosecution with extra evidence of the P. Ws. In fact Muhammad Yousaf and the complainant Khurshid would remain in field and they have corroborated each other on all salient features of this case without any ambiguity. I am in complete accord with the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of these two P. Ws. Has proved thecase of the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.
The result that I dismiss the revision petition on merits, and maintain the conviction of the petitioners.
6 However, in view of the lapse of ten years, the time when the offence was committed and the fact that half of the total sentence has been undergone by the petitioners, therefore, it can be easily said that they haw served the substantial sentence in this case. Even if they had remained in jail, they would have served nothing more than that what they have already served, as they would have earned the usual remissions. Even otherwise it would not be in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice to disturb the life of these petitioners who are on bail for the last tene and the offence which they committed, neither involved any moral turpitud or any anti-social act against society.
7. The upshot of the case is that while dismissing the revision petitior I and maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under section 332/34,1 P. P. C., I reduce their sentence to the period already undergone by them Since, they are on bail, they will stand discharged of their bail bonds.