These are two Revision Petitions, one filed by Muzaffar Khan, Abdur Rahman, Sher Zaman and Haider Zaman, who were convicted by First Class Magistrate Rawalpindi, exercising powers under section 30, Cr. P. C. For an offence under section 325 read with section 34, P. P. C. Muzaffar on account of his old age was sentenced to one month R. I. And a fine of Rs. 600 or in default to undergo imprisonment for nine months while the remaining three were sentenced to undergo R. I.
For nine months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default to undergo three, months R. I. Their appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The other was filed by the son of the injured for enhancement of the sentence.
2. A dispute between the parties had arisen over the theft of some trees and the injured was said to have abused the petitioners a few days prior to this incident. On the 27th of July 1962, Sultan was returning from the mosque after saying morning prayer when on the way he was waylaid by the four petitioners who were armed with sticks and injuries were caused to him. Two persons, namely, Rahmat Khan and Fateh Khan, who also happened to be returning from the mosque, witnessed the incident. The injured was removed to the house and from there he was taken to a hospital situated at some distance in another village. After rendering first aid the doctor advised the injured to be taken to Rawalpindi. This was done. His son who happened to be posted at Rawalpindi, after lodging him in the hospital went to the village and from there proceeded to the, police station where the first report was lodged on 28th July 1962.
3. On perusal of the record and proceedings, and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused persons and learned counsel for the State, while the petitioner in the other Petition and his counsel were absent, I find that this case does not call for interference.
4. There can be no manner of doubt that the injured had received injuries. This is borne out by the medical evidence: There were in all five injuries and one of them was a fracture.
5. As regards the identity of the petitioners with the crime, the Courts below relied upon the evidence of the injured and the two witnesses who had arrived at the scene when the injured was being belaboured. Their evidence unmistakably established the case against the applicants. The defence evidence was false and rightly disbelieved.
6. The prosecution case was attacked on two grounds. Firstly, there was delay in lodging the report and secondly the two witnesses were related to the injured and there was enmity between the parties. Taking up the delay, it stands fully explained. It may be recalled that the injured after he was initially treated by a local doctor was taken t-- Rawalpindi for further treatment. The son of the complainant, who happened to be there, went to the village and then lodged the first report at the police station which was situated far off. Naturally, it must take some time before the report could.
Be lodged. It seems clear that the relations were anxious to provide immediate medical aid to the injured rather than hasten to lodge the report. Taking up the witnesses, there is no, doubt that they are closely related to the injured but that is no reason to discard their evidence.
7. Even alluding to the legal position, there is a marked difference between an appeal and a revision petition. The appellate Court can re-evaluate evidence and arrive at its own conclusion, but the powers of a Court of revision are limited and can be exercised within the scope of sections 435 and 439, Cr. P. C. It is a settled principle enunciated from the judicial pronouncements and consistently followed that although the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a revision on grounds of fact, but this power must be sparingly exercised. It is pertinently observed that section 435, Cr. P. C. Does not give the High Court a roving-commission either in the direction of stamping with approval the proceedings of a lower Court or in the direction of questioning about and, looking to see if possibly ' under a fair record there lies some trace of possible error. Any departure from this rile will render the distinction between appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction nugatory. So it follows that what has to be seen is whether there is any evidence to support the finding of the lower Courts or whether the assessment of the evidence is perverse or such as no reasonable man could have reached that finding. This is not the case here. There is enough evidence on record to establish the guilt of the petitioners and, therefore, the finding reached by the two Courts below was fully justified.
8. Taking up the question of the enhancement of the sentence no case has been made out.
Although the injured has received five injuries yet barring one all were simple injuries.
9. In the result both the revision petition are dismissed. The accused persons, namely; Muzaffar Khan, Abdur Rahman, Sher Zaman and Haider Zaman are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled.
Non-bailable warrants be issued and they may be remanded to custody to undergo the un- expired portion of their sentences.