1. ' ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, J.--- We had disposed of this appeal by a short order, dated 26-2-1998 and reduced the sentence to that already undergone by the appellants. Now we proceed to record the reasons for said order.
2. ' The three appellants have called in question judgment, dated 11-12-1995 passed by Special Judge, S.T.A., Larkana whereby the appellants were convicted under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For ten years and fine of Rs,10,000 each and in default to suffer R.I. For one year more.
3. Appellant Abdul Karim was also convicted and sentenced under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance to suffer R.I. For five years and to pay a fine of Rs,5,000 in default further R.I. For six months.
4. ' The prosecution case is based on the report lodged by S.H.O. Ghulam Kabir Dal on 30-4-1989 at Police Station Taluka Larkana. It is stated by the complainant that he along with subordinate staff reached the scene of offence in Crime No,83 of 1989 where S.P. Larkana, D.S.P. C.I.A., S.I.P.
5. Muhammad Moosa came as well and foot prints were tracked through tracker Kandal Khan.
6. ' It is also alleged that private persons, namely, Muhammad Chhutal, Roshan Ali, Haji Raza Muhammad, Imdad Ali and Noor Ahmed also accompanied the police party. On the way S.H.O.
7. Rafiuddin Khoso along with staff joined the tracking party. The police went on tracking the prints of the abductee and six abductors. However, at 11-30 a.m. In the forest firing started where the police party and the private persons saw six persons dragging the abductee and were firing at the police party. One of the dacoit was armed with Kalashnikov and two with rifles while two were armed with guns and one had a hatchet. The firing continued between the police and the abductors and it is stated that the abductee got released himself and one culprit by name Abdul Kari was apprehended while the other fled away. A rifle and bullets were secured from Abdul Karim being without license. One of the accused was identified to be Risque. Coming back to the police station, the two F.I.Rs, were lodged, one for offence under sections 307 and 353 and the other for offence under section 13(d), Alas Ordinance.
8. ' After completing the investigation, the police challenged the case showing Moral as absconder.
9. ' The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution adduced the evidence of P.Ws. Muhammad Yousif, Roshan Ali, Muhammad Chhutal, tracker Kandal, H.C. Bashir Ahmed, P.C. Ghulam Rasool, complainant S.H.O. Ghulam Kabir, Rafiuddin Khoso, Mashir Muhammad Usman and Magistrate Allandino and A.S.-I. Haji Hizbullah.
10. ' The appellants in their statements have denied the allegations levelled against them and professed innocence. However, they did not examine any witness nor offered themselves to be examined under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
11. After arguing at some length, the learned counsel for the appellants did not press the appeal on merits and requested for leniency and reduction in the sentence. Learned State Counsel also conceded that he had no objection if the sentence of the appellants was reduced and modified.
12. ' Learned counsel further submitted that the jail roll of the appellants was called from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sukkur to look into the period of sentence served out by the appellants. The report is received which is as under:-- NameSentence served excluding remissionRemission earnedUnexpired portion of sentence.
13. Abdul Karim4 years 6 months 1 day.3 years 3 months 18 days.3 years 8 months 11 days.
14. Asghar 5 years 5 months 14 days.3 years 2 months 12 days.2 years 4 months 4 days Rafique 5 years 9 months 8 days3 years 2 months 12 days.2 years 0 months 10 days.
15. ' This report is received on 15-9-1997 and today it is 26-2-1998, thus, the period of 5 months is yet to be added to the period of sentence served out.
16. ' It is the case in which the none from the prosecution side has sustained any injury and, in such circumstances, the appellants were entitled to lesser sentence.
17. ' We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and feel that his request deserves consideration. The appellants are in custody and have served the sentence as stated above. We, therefore, feel that it will meet the end of justice if the sentences of the appellants are reduced to the one already undergone. The appellants shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.