' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the complainants is allowed and disposed of.
2. The petitioners alongwith other were convicted under sections 324 and 337-F(i), P.P.C. By the trial Court through judgment dated 26-9-1998. It (trial Court) sentenced the petitioners under section 324, P.P.C. To undergo 4 years' R.I. Each and under section 337-F(i), P.P.C., they were sentenced to 6 months' R.I. The appeal filed by them against their conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian through judgment dated 1-2-1999 and the revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence was also dismissed. The High Court while hearing the revision petition, issued notice to the petitioners and their co-convict as to why their sentence under section 324, P.P.C. Should not be enhanced. On the issuance of this notice, the complainant who had also filed revision petition for enhancement withdrew the same for the reason that suo motu notice for enhancement of sentence awarded to the convicts had already been issued.
3. The learned Judge of the High Court through the impugned judgment dated 21-12-2001 enhanced the sentence of the petitioners under section 324, P.P.C. From 4 years' R.I. To 7 years. The reasons given for enhancement of the sentence was that the sentence already awarded to the petitioners did not commensurate with the seriousness of the offence keeping in view the nature of injuries caused by them. It was observed that the doctor had also noted the clinical condition of the injured as under:-- "Patient senseless, profuse blood coming from the wounds. BP 100/70 and pulse 90."
4. We have also gone through the medico-legal report according to which injuries caused by the petitioners on the body of the injured are as under:--
(1) Fire-arm entry wound, margin inverted 1/2 x 1/2 x c.m. Interior of right side of chest oval shape.
Fire-arm exit wound 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. On right shoulder. Margin entered, communicating with re nose the 1.
(2) Fire-arm entry wound (circular in shape) Margin inverted 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. Over the right side of the chest over the margin of ribcage causing right side impochendism fracture. Blood is coming from the wound.
(3) Lecerated wound margin inverted (superficial wound) 2 x 2 a deep over the left impochohadism is lacerated.
(4) Fire-arm entry wound margin inverted oval in shape 1-1/2 c.m. On the dossal side of right forearm.
(5) Fire-arm wound, superment 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. On the front and distal part of left. Clinical condition sensless, profuse blood. Injuries Nos.2, 4 kept under observation covering from right wound. BF 100- -? Inju: 1, 3, 5 Jafa on one subject."
5. We find that these injuries were by fire-arm weapons and also on the vital part of the body. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they have done all to cause death of the injured and it was his luck that he was saved. Keeping in view serious nature of the injuries caused by the petitioners, we feel that the enhancement of sentence from 4 years' R.I. To 7 years' R.I. Is absolutely in accordance with law and does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
6. The main burden of arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the petitioners had already undergone the sentence awarded to them, therefore, enhancement at this stage would amount to' double jeopardy, for the petitioners shall be deemed to have been punished for the same offence twice. In support of this, he has relied upon the case reported as Mst. Razia Begum v. Jehangir and others (PLD 1982 SC 302). It was a case of murder. The convict had been sentenced to life imprisonment and the question arose whether after he had already undergone the said sentence, he could by way of enhancement be awarded the sentence of death. This Court held that sentence of life imprisonment and death sentence are two independent full sentences prescribed under the law, either of which could be awarded to the convict under section 302, P.P.C., therefore, the one full sentence having been undergone, he could not have been awarded the other sentence of death which if awarded would be a case of double jeopardy. Under section 324, P.P.C., the maximum sentence prescribed was 10 years' R.I., therefore, it could not be argued that while having undergone the sentence of lesser period awarded to him under the same provision of law of 4 years, the petitioners had undergone the full sentence prescribed under the law of the said offence, therefore, in our considered view, in such circumstances, the High Court was legally competent and vested with the jurisdiction to enhance the sentence up to the maximum period of imprisonment which was prescribed as one full sentence.
8. As regards change of sentence of the petitioners from section 337-F(i) to section 337(D), P.P.C., we may observe that nothing turns on it, for the said enhanced sentence has been ordered to run concurrently with the sentence as enhanced under section 324, P.P.C., therefore, we do not feel it necessary to deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in that regard.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly argued that one convict namely Zulfiqar Ali after having served out the sentence awarded to him alongwith the petitioners under section 334, P.P.C. Had gone abroad and he was not served with the notice of enhancement of sentence, therefore, without following the provisions of law of declaring him absconder, the sentence of the petitioners also could not have been enhanced, for the case could not be heard unless all the convicts were before the Court.
10. We are afraid; the argument in the circumstances of this case has no force. It was a case of notice of enhancement of sentence and not the original trial, therefore, the said Zulfiqar Ali if would feel aggrieved by the judgment passed by the High Court, may seek remedy in accordance with law. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they cannot raise any objection as they were not heard before their sentence was enhanced.
11. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merits in this petition which is accordingly, dismissed and leave refused.