' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20-11-1995 at Zohar prayer the complainant Muhammad Razzaq went to the barber shop at adda Uchali. After getting shaved he came out of the shop at about 2-30 p.m. When Muhammad Aslant armed with a knife and Sikandar armed with stick came there and raised lalkara. In the meantime, Nazir, Khalid and Ghulam Muhammad also came at the spot armed with sticks. They started abusing the complainant. Sikandar gave a stick blow to the complainant on his nose, Munir also inflicted an injury with stick and similarly Aslam gave a knife blow on the left hand-thumb on the person of the complainant. The motive alleged was that the complainant had a previous altercation with Aslam and, therefore, all the accused caused injuries on the person of the complainant.
3. After completion of the investigation, all the five accused were challaned to face the trial. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted Khalid but held guilty Sikandar, Nasir Ahmad and Muhammad Aslam and convicted them as under:\ {{TABLE}} Nasir Ahmad One year's R.I. And daman of Rs,2,000 under section 337-A(i), P.P.C.
Sikandar Two years' R.I. And arsh to the tune of Rs,30,000 under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C.
Muhammad One year's R.I. And daman of Aslam Rs,2,000 under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. {{TABLE}} ' The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended in favour of all the convicts. Ghulam Muhammad, accused died during the trial, therefore, the case against him stood abated. The conviction and sentence was recorded by the learned trial Magistrate on 7-2-2001. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab maintained the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Magistrate vide judgment, dated 18-4-2001.
3. In support of this revision petition, learned counsel submits that no case under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. Is made out because the Radiologist was not produced by the prosecution and the case if any, is made out against the petitioners is of under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. That is (). Learned counsel in support of his submission relied upon 1991 PCr.LJ 1081 and 1991 PCr.LJ 1562.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General submits there is no denying the fact that the Radiologist was not produced by the prosecution but Medical Officer who conducted the medical examination of the injured P.W. His statement should be believed in toto.
5. The short law point involved in this case is whether any X-Ray was produced or the Radiologist was produced by the prosecution to prove that it was a case under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C.. The answer is in the negative. In this view of the matter the conviction of Sikandar, petitioner convict is set aside and he is convicted under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. Now comes the quantum of sentence, the sentence of 2 years is maintained but the amount of arsh is altered to daman and is reduced to Rs,2,000 in default whereof the convict shall undergo S.I. For two months. So far as conviction and sentence of Nasir Ahmad and Muhammad Aslam convict appellants is concerned, that is maintained. This revision with the alteration of conviction under section 337-A(iii), to under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. Qua Sikandar convict appellant, is dismissed.