1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioners were tried for offences under sections 394, 397, 323 and 325/34, P. P. C., by the Sessions Judge, Sukkur, by order dated the 14th April 1967. The petitioners were acquitted of the charges under sections 394, 397 and 323, P. P. C. They were, however, convicted under section 325/34, P. P. C. And sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment each and also to pay a fine of Rs 500 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The petitioners challenged this judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1967, which was dismissed on the 11th August 1969.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that on the 23rd October 1965, at about noon time when the complainant Nabi Bux was ploughing his land, the petitioners armed with lathis came and told him that he had been making complaints against them and in order to teach him a lesson, they forcibly took away his bullocks. Vile he was resisting, the petitioners gave him lathis blows. At this he raised alarm which attracted P. Ws. Ali Murad and Din Muhammad. These persons intervened but the petitioners gave them also lathi blows. All the three injured persons went to Bagerji Police Station and lodged the First Information Report. All the three injured persons were sent to the Hospital for treatment.
3. The petitioners were arrested but the bullocks were secured from the cattle pound where these were alleged to have been impounded by one Kabil. The learned Sessions Judge held that the case of the complainant for the robbery of the bullocks had not been proved. He, however, convicted them for causing injuries to the complainant party in furtherance of their common intention under section 325/34, P. P. C. This order was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1967, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on the lath August 1969. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said other.
4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no common intention to cause grievous injuries to the complainant party is also devoid of all force. The evidence has established beyond doubt that the petitioners came armed with lathis with the intention of causing injuries to the complainant party.
5. Lastly it was contended by the learned counsel for the peti--tioners that as the case against them for robbery was not believed by the Courts below, the evidence of the same witnesses should not have been accepted in respect of the offence under section 325/34, P P. C. This contention has also no force. The P. Ws. Who were injured persons were examined by a medical doctor and were also treated in the Hospital. Their evidence about the injuries caused to them was quite reliable and the conviction of the petitioners based on that is fully justified is no force in the petition which is dismissed.