1989 PLP 3292 (MLD)

Ali Ahmad Malik for Petitioner. A.H. Masood for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1989. The facts leading to the filing of this Revision are that petitioner Am 11 alongwith his brother Gama alias Sultan was tried by Magistrate Section 30, Jhang, under section 307/34, P.P.C. for murderous assault on one Hassan. The learned trial Court vide its judgment, dated 21-6-1973, gave the benefit of doubt to Gama and acquitted him. The petitioner was, however, found guilty under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced to four years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default one year R.I. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging his conviction and sentence which came up nor hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, who vide his judgment, dated 20-12-1976 dismissed the appeal. In the present Revision the petitioner challenges the judgments of the Courts below.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a delay of about two days in the registration of the case but the same has not been considered. Submits that the eye-witnesses were interested and inimical, therefore, should not have been relied upon. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The prosecution in support of its case has produced eight witnesses in all. The ocular account was furnished by Allah Bakhsh, Alawal and Allah Ditta, P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6, respectively, as well as Hassan, P.W.7, the injured. They were cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on the record to indicate that they were interested or inimical. In these circumstances, I feel that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the occurrence took place somewhere in 1973 and since then he had been undergoing the vigours of trial. Contends that the petitioner in all has undergone about eight months of his imprisonment which would be sufficient in the circumstances of the case. According to the record available, the petitioner has undergone about eight months of imprisonment. He was alleged to have caused solitary injury which was declared grievous but not dangerous to life. There is no allegation that the petitioner even tried to repeat the injury. In these circumstances, I feel that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone would adequately meet the ends of justice. For what has been discussed above, while dismissing the Revision, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to what the petitioner has already undergone. The sentence of fine shall, however, be maintained. With this reduction in the sentence of imprisonment the Revision is disposed of. N.H.Q./A-619/L Order accordingly.