1. NASIM HASAN SHAHJ.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 23-4- 1978 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Revision No. 235 of 1977, whereby the conviction of the petitioners under sections 323/452/34, P. P. C. Was maintained, though their sentence was reduced to that already undergone by them and in lieu of the remaining sentence they were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 250 each on each count.
2. According to the prosecution case Mst. Kalsoom, daughter of the complainant, had been married to Muhammad Ilyas petitioner, on the condition that Abdul Majid petitioner would marry his daughter to the complainant's son. As Abdul Majid petitioner was not abiding by the agreement to marry his daughter, Mst. Kalsoom, who had gone to her parents, was not being permitted to join her husband. Muhammad Ilyas petitioner. One day before the occurrence the petitioners approached the complainant for the return of the lady, but in vain. On the day of the occurrence, i. e.6-9-1967, all the four petitioners (Abdul Majid and Mohammad Hussain) armed with sticks, while the other two empty-handed) trespassed into the house of the complainant at peshiwala and injured Mst. Sharifan, his wife, who received three stick blows, however, on the intervention of Fateh Muhammad Mohammed Shafi Abdul Ghafoor and Noor Elahi the petitioner fled away. A case under section 323/454/34, P. P. C. Was, registered against them and they were tried by a First Class Multan, and convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. For six Months each on each count, vide his judgment, dated 28-10-1974.
3. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Vehari, against their conviction and sentence, but the same was dismissed.
4. The High Court, on revision, as stated earlier, maintained the conviction of the petitioners. So far as the sentence is concerned, the Court observed that as the parties were closely related and there had been provocation and that the attitude of the complainant's side in not allowing Mst. Kalsoom to join her husband being unreasonable, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence was reduced to that already undergone. However, it was directed that in addition to the period of imprisonment already undergone, each of the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs. 250 in lieu of the remaining sentence of imprisonment, or in default to undergo R. I. For one month each.
5. In support of this petition it was submitted before us that the F. I. R. Had been exhibited behind the back of the accused/petitioners. It was explained that when Fateh Muhammad complainant appeared in the witness-- box, the F. I. R., which he had to prove, was not available on the record.
6. Hence his examination was postponed. The F. I. R. Was summoned and the witness was re- examined on 26-9-1974, but the counsel for the petitioners was not present. The F. I. R. Was, however, proved by the witness on that date and the petitioners were not provided with an opportunity of cross-examining him.
7. We observe that the charges against the petitioners were framed on 1-10-1974 and the judgment delivered by the trial Court on 28-10-1974. But the objection raised before us was not taken before the learned Magistrate during this period. It is also significant to note that after their conviction and sentence the petitioners filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, and after its dismissal also availed of the remedy of revision before the High Court. The contention now being pressed does not appear to have been agitate before any of the above forums either. At this belated stage, therefore, .It is not open to the petitioners to contend that they were not provided with an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant with reference to the F. I. R. Even otherwise, we do not think that the petitioners' case has been prejudiced by not cross-examining the witness who lodged the F. I. R.
8. It was next submitted that the provisions of section 452, P. P. C. Were not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case, in that the petitioners never trespassed into the house of the complainant. It is submitted that even if it be presumed that the petitioners entered the house of the complainant with a view to reconciling certain matrimonial disputes, they could not be termed to have trespassed. Hence their conviction and sentence under sec--tion 452, P. P. C. Was liable to be set aside.
9. This objection, too, is not of much weight. The question raised turns upon the appreciation of evidence and it has been concurrently held that the petitioners committed house-trespass after having made preparation for causing hurt. The circumstance that the petitioners after being unsuccessful in bringing the lady back a day before the occurrence again went to the houses of the complainant (while two of the petitioners were armed with sticks) and entered the house and injured the wife of the complainant, shows that the conviction of the petitioners under section 452/34, P. P. C. Was justified.
10. In conclusion, we do not find any force in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.