' Muhammad Sadiq son of Muhammad Hussain was tried by Mr. Nazir Ahmed Ch., Section 30 Magistrate under section 307/326, P. P. C. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 26-11-1965 found him guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to four years' R. I. Under section 307, P. P. C.
For making a murderous assault on Abdullah complainant. His appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala was partly accepted on 11-2-1966 and his sentence was reduced from four years' R. I. To one year's R. I. Hence this revision petition which was admitted on 6-5-1966 by this Court and the petitioner was released on bail. It will be useful to mention at this stage of the case that the injured person Abdullah complainant produced a compromise deed before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala on the ground that as the petitioner and the complainant were cousins inter se, therefore, he did not want to oppose the appeal and had forgiven the petitioner.
This fact finds mention in paragraph seven of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. This request was declined as the offence with which the petitioner has been convicted was a non- compoundable offence.
2. The brief facts of the case are that during the marriage of the niece of Abdullah complainant Yusuf and one Khadim who is brother of Sadiq petitioner quarreled with each other. Sadiq petitioner also came there armed with stick to help his brother which led to an altercation and left them to nurture grudge against each other which resulted in the shape of coming events. On 2-9- 1965 complainant, while sloughing his land was visited by Nizam Din and Rehmat at about 9. a.m.
Who shared with him a Huqa smoke. Sadiq was also sloughing nearby. Suddenly Sadiq petitioner picked up the hatchet which was lying at the place of occurrence and inflicted a blow with the same on the complainant's neck and immediately ran away with the weapon of offence.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the offence stood compromised between the parties for the simple reason that being very closely related they wanted to live with amity and peace, therefore the sentence of six months undergone by him will serve the end of justice, as the total sentence was for one year only. He has also relied in this context on a judgment in Cr. A. No, 832 of 1965 titled Muhammad Khan v. The State in which Mr. Justice Muhammad Gul (as his Lordship then was) considered the sentence of four months already given to be sufficient in view of prospects of future amity of the family.
4. I find quite a force in the arguments of the learned counsel. In view of the facts that complainant Abdullah had buried his hatchet immediately after the occurrence in the larger interest of peaceful relations with his own cousin (the present petitioner). Of course the learned Sessions Judge could not accept the compromise as under the law the offence was not compoundable but the fact heavily weighted with him as he reduced the' sentence from four years' R. I. To one year's R. I.
Following the observation in the above-cited judgment, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served to ask the petitioner to undergo the remaining part of his sentence, keeping in view the remission which this petitioner was likely to earn.
5. For the foregoing reasons while dismissing this revision petition on merits and maintaining his conviction, I reduce his sentence to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner who is on bail will stand discharge of his bail bond.