' Shabbir alongwith his brother Munir and father Hussain was tried under section 325/34, P. P. C. Ch. Ghulam Murtaza Magistrate section 30, Sheikupura, who vide his judgment dated 25-12-1965, while acquitting the other two, found Shabbir guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to six months'
R. I. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, he filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore at Sheikhupura, who vide his judgment dated 19-3-1966, upheld his conviction and maintained the sentence.
2. Hence this revision petition which was admitted on 31-3-1966, and the petitioner was released on bail.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on the fateful day i. e., 1-9-1964 at Chahwela, an altercation took place between the parties over the turn of water which resulted into this unfortunate incident.
According to the medical evidence Habib complainant P. W. 2 received a grievous injury on the inner side of his left ankle. The defence version in this case was that actually the petitioner had borrowed the turn of water from one Mukhtar, a big landlord but the complainant did not agree to it and actually it was Habib who initiated the assault with his dang on the petitioner and he in his private defence, kicked the complainant by which an injury was caused on his left ankle.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State and have perused the record of the case with care and caution. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the nature of the offence, its attending circumstances coupled with the defence plea, do not make out for visiting a substantial sentence in this case as according to the doctor Muhammad Rafi who was later on called as defence witness, elaborated that the possibility of defence version could not be excluded vis-a-vis the injury inflicted on the ankle of Habib complainant. He has not controverted the two findings of fact as arrived at by the Court's below but has made grievance of the sentence passed by them against the petitioner. He has also pointed out that the petitioner as well as complainant belonged to the same village and have their land contiguous to each other and in the larger interest of amity and peace in their life, the ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. In this respect he has drawn my attention to protracted trial which consumed two years of his valuable life and the agony and anguish which he suffered for the same.
5. I have given my anxious thought to all these contentions and feel that if the case would have been promptly fixed up, the matter would have stood on different footing but the very fixation of the date after a lapse of ten years, in which the petitioner was allowed to remain on bail, it would be really very hard to call upon him to serve the remaining part of his sentence hen nothing untoward has happened during this long period between the parties. The petitioner was 20 years of age at the time of commission of this crime and now he would be 30 years old and I am informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is going to be married on 20th of this month. I am conscious of the fact that the law like Cupid is blind and justice must take its course but at the same time it has also laid down that justice should be tampered with mercy because the main aim of the justice is to maintain society in which law and order is the rule of the day and people should be deterred to commit the crimes but at the same time it is also for the Judge to see that his judgment should be in accord with the attending circumstances of the case and should not create hardship which otherwise would not serve any useful purpose.
6. In the light of the above discussion, while dismissing the revision petition and maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, I reduce his sentence to the period already undergone by him. Since, he is on bail he is discharged of his bail bonds.