1984 PLP 1465 (SCMR)

Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st March, 1984. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ Petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 22‑1‑1984, dismissing their criminal revision. 2.We issued notice to the State and after hearing we proceed to convert the petition into appeal and dispose it of as such.

3. The occurrence in this case took place on 9‑5‑1981 in village Jhawarian, District Sargodha. The F.I.R. was lodged by Muhammad Azam P.W.5 at 11‑30 a.m. on the same day. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that, Zahir and Azarr P.Ws were watering the fields of Allah Bakhsh P.W. at his request. At about Namazwela, they noted that there was decrease of water supply in the Khal. When they went up the Khal to find out as to where was the leakage, they found Ahmad and Muhammad Yar standing armed with Lathis near the Khal where they had made the cut. When Zakir and Azam P.Ws. tried to repair the Khal, Ahmad and Muhammad Yar stopped them, hot words were also exchanged. In the meantime the other co‑accused also arrived there. All of them were armed with Dangs. They started belabouring Zakir and Azam P.Ws. Muhammad Afzal and Allah Bakhsh P.Ws. also came there. Muhammad Afzal P.W. was also injured, The motive for the incident is stated to be that there was a dispute over the water supply.

4. Appellants were arrested and Sotas were recovered from them which were not found to be blood‑stained and were, therefore, of no use to the prosecution. The prosecution case mainly rests on the testimony of Zakir P.W.2, Afzal P.W.3, Muhammad Azam P.W.5 and Allah Bakhsh P.W.6. Of these P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 had suffered injuries during the incident. The trial Court found them guilty of offence under section 308/149, P.P.C. for which it sentenced them to 2 years' R.I. each and under section 148, P.P.C. they were convicted and sentenced to one years' R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Their appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge and criminal revision before the High Court failed. They have, therefore, approached this Court.

5. Before us the learned counsel for the appellants stated that both the parties have compromised the case with a view to live peacefully in future. Learned counsel for the complainant admitted this fact. Appellants' counsel submitted that in this view of the matter the sentences awarded to the appellants may be reduced. Learned State counsel as well as the P.Ws. and the complaining who was, present in the Court support these submissions. We, therefore, accept the appeal and while maintaining the convictions we reduce the sentences of the appellants to that already undergone by them. They shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in some other case. S. Q. Appeal accepted.