1982 PLP 253 (SCMR)

WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑This petition is directed against the Order of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Revision No. 661 of 1966, dated 21‑3‑1977. By this Order, the Revision Petition was dismissed as without any merits. Briefly, the facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner, along with Sadiq, Yousaf Khan, Yaseen Khan were challaned under section 148/149/307, P. P. C. by Shakargarh Police Station. The prosecution story is that Shamoon Khan, etc. complainant, and the petitioners accused party had cross‑cases under section 307/34, P. P. C. under section 447, P. P. C_ before the Resident Magistrate, Shakargarh. They had gone to attend the cases, and while returning on 20‑7‑1965, at midday Shamoon Khan was accompanied by Yousaf Khan and Fazal Khan. When they came near the village Dinpur, one mile from P. S. Shakargarb, petitioners' along with the acquitted accused, followed the complainant Shamoon Khan and inflicted several injuries to him. In support of the prosecution, Shamoon Khan P. W. 1, Nazir P. W. 2, Khan. P. W. 3, Fazal Khan, P. W.4 and Yousaf Khan P. W. 5 were examined as eye‑witnesses. Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Qureshi P. W. 6, Muhammad Ali A. S. I. P. W. 7, Barkat Ali F. C. P. W. 8 and Ghulam Muhammad A. S. I. P. W. 9 further supported the case of the prosecution. The learned trial Magistrate, in his judgment dated 24‑6‑1976, found all the accused guilty of the said offences, and sentenced them to one year's R. I. each under section 148, P. P. C., and 3 years' R. 1. each under section 307/149, P. P. C. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, who, by his judgment, dated 4‑8‑1966, acquitted Sadiq Khan, Yousaf Khan and Younas Khan, and dismissed the appeal of the rest of the accused on merits. He, however, reduced their sentences to six months' R. I. tinder section 148, P. P. C. and to two years' R. 1 under section 307/149, P. P. C. This order was challenged in the above Revision Petition, which was dismissed. Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the cases of the petitioners were similar to the one of Yousaf Khan, Sadiq Khan and Younus Khan. He further contended that there was no reliable evidence in support of the prosecution case. It was also contended that it is now over 11 years that the sentence was imposed on the petitioners. They have already undergone 7 months' imprisonment, and this should be considered sufficient, and the petitioners should be ordered to suffer imprison ment already undergone. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are satisfied that there is no force in the contentions raised by him. The evidence produced by the prosecution shows that Shamoon Khan, complainant, who was the target of attack, received as many as thirty‑seven injuries on his person. Out of this, injuries Nos. 25, 31 and 37 were declared grievious. Injury No. 25 was found to have been inflicted by sharp‑edged weapon, where as the rest of the injuries were caused by the blunt‑weapon. In view of th e prosecution evidence we do not consider this case as fit one for interference. We are also not inclined to interfere with the question of sentence. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.