' Saif Ullah son of Muhammad Sharif, petitioner, through the present revision has challenged the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alipur, on 15-6-2000, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner alongwith other four accused was tried in a case F.I.R. No,40 of 1994 registered at Police Station Shaher Sultan, on 31-3-1994 for offence under sections 334/109/148/149, P.P.C., by Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Shafique, Magistrate Section 30, Camp at Alipur, District Muzaffargarh, who vide his judgment, dated 19-2-1999 acquitted the co-accused but convicted the petitioner under section 334, P.P.C. And sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four years with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The petitioner was also sentenced to pay a sum of Rs,2,40,000 as Arsh, which was to be paid to the injured P.W. Namely Zafar Iqbal. The petitioner was, however, acquitted of the other charges.
3. As the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, he has challenged his conviction and sentence, awarded to him by the learned trial Court and maintained by the learned Appellate Court, through the instant revision petition before this Court.
4. According to F.I.R. Exh.P.D., which was registered on the statement of Muhammad Ajmal P.W.3, the nose and upper lip of Zafar Iqbal P.W.4 were chopped off with a knife by the petitioner.
5. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the present petition as far as the sentence and conviction are concerned and rightly so and has asked for release of the petitic :ter, subject to his furnishing security so as the petitioner can arrange the payment of the Arsh amount.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments of the Courts below. The case of the prosecution was fully proved during the investigation, as Muhammad Ajmal, Sarfraz and Zafar Iqbal gave the ocular account of the case. Zafar Iqbal, whose nose and upper lip were chopped off, appeared as P.W.4 and made his statement. His statement was fully corroborated by the statements of P.Ws.2 and 3. The story of the prosecution was also fully supported by the medical evidence, which was supplied by Dr: Wasim lqbal, P.W.6. The recovery of knife from the petitioner was also proved during the trial.
7. In the circumstances, I dismiss the instant revision petition and maintain the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner. As far as the question of payment of Arsh amount Rs,2,40,000 is concerned, the mode of payment of Arsh amount has been dealt with in section 337-D, B P.P.C.
And according to subsection (1) of section 337-X, P.P.C., the petitioner can make payment of Arsh amount within a period of three years from the date of final judgment.
8. In this view of the matter, I hold that upon serving out his sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned trial Court, the petitioner should be released from the jail upon furnishing security equivalent to the amount of Arsh to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It is, however, clarified that if the petitioner does not pay Arsh amount to the injured (Zafar Iqbal) within three years from today, he shall be taken into custody and shall be lodged in the jail till the payment of requisite amount of Arsh.
Revision .