' Miraj Din and Abdul Hamid, were convicted and sentenced to three years' R. I. Each under section 307/34, P. P. C. Vide judgment of Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Cheema, Magistrate Section 30, Sahiwal, dated 6th January, 1976. They filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Sahiwal, who vide his judgment dated 3rd March, 1976, while partially accepting their appeal, acquitted Abdul Hamid of all the charges and with regard to Miraj Din, his conviction was converted from under section 307, P. P. C. To one under section 326, P. P. C. And he was sentenced to two years' R. I.
2. Miraj Din petitioner has preferred a revision petition through jail against his conviction and sentence. He is now represented by Syed lftikhar Hussain Gilani, Advocate.
3. The brief facts of the case are that over a dispute of a property comprising of a house and shop situated in Chak No, 82/6R belonging to Mst. Jamila, mother of the complainant, an altercation took place in which the petitioner is said to have inflicted one injury with his hatchet on the head of the complainant whereas Abdul Hamid co-accused is alleged to have given a sota blow on the person of Amanullah P. W. (complainant).
4. The prosecution case was supported by ten witnesses, out of whom Allah Ditto P. VC, 4 and Amanullah P. W. 5, are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. After the close of the evidence while appearing before the trial Magistrate in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C., the petitioner stated that in fact it was the complainant who had launched an attack on him with hatchet and he in his own private defence, inflicted a single hatchet blow on his head and that too, in the heat of moment. He produced two Defence Witnesses in his defence who supported his version.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in fact this plea taken by him, was made at the instance of some misguided friend who in order to save Abdul Hamid co- accused put these words into the mouth of the petitioner and thus brought his action within the ambit of section 326, P. P. C. Learned counsel has also referred to to various discrepancies which have occurred in the statements of the P. Ws. And has pleaded that in fact there was no motive for the petitioner to cause solitary injury and in fact he had been made a scapegoat for Abdul Hamid co-accused. In the end it has also been pleaded that if the contentions raised by him do not find favour with this Court, the petitioner's sentence be reduced to the period already under gone by him because he acted at the spur of moment and had no intention to cause any serious injury to the complainant, According to the learned counsel, there was no motive for the petitioner to commit this crime.
6. I have given my anxious thought to all these contentions so raised by the learned counsel in this behalf and find that the plea raised by the petitioner through his jail petition that he did not make any such statement as attributed to him under section 342, Cr. P. C., is without any substance. This petitioner had a counsel to defend himself before the trial Court and the record of the case shows that lengthy cross-examination was conducted on many of the witnesses, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in any way not apprised of the charge against him and the statement so recorded before the trial Court was not a statement at all from his side. It is a settled point of law that the acts of the Court done in the course of the judicial duties are always accepted to be correct unless some mala fide is attributed and proved to that effect. In this case, nothing of this kind was ever agitated either before the trial Court after the close of the evidence or before the appellate Court when the case of the petitioner came before it. The petitioner stands condemned by his own statement coupled with the evidence of an injured P. W. Fully supported by the medical evidence. In view of the above I have no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the both the Courts below and thus maintained the conviction of the petitioner under section 326, Cr. P.
C.
' However, keeping in view the circumstances of this case and lack of motive on the part of the petitioner, I find lot of force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein he has pleaded the reduction of the sentence of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested immediately after the F. I. R. Was lodged and remained in jail till he was finally convicted and sentenced only 6- 1-1976 by the trial Court. This would mean that he had suffered confinement for his silly act committed without any premeditation, for about a year and six months. He has also gone through the agony of trial during this long period. In the circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of safe administration of criminal justice, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone by him. He will be set at liberty forthwith unless he is wanted in some other case.