MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE Malik Amjad Pervez , Sh. Naveed Shehryar for the State.

Muhammad Aslam petitioner with two others, were tried under section 325/34, P.P.C. for causing injuries including grievous injury to Nasir Ahmad complainant.

2. The prosecution produced 7 witnesses. Naseer Ahmad P.W.1 supported the prosecution case in all material particulars. Jewna P.W.2 supported the statement of the complainant. Muhammad Yaqoob P.W.3 is Radiologist. He stated that the ulna bone of the complainant was found fractured. Dr. Zafar Ahmad P.W.4 found two injuries on the person of the complainant. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioners denied the incriminating circumstances. He produced Rehman D.W.1 and Noor Din D.W.2 they stated that the complainant had initiated attack on the accused, who injured him in self-defence.

3. The trial Court convicted the petitioner and his co-accused under section 325/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to 3 years' R.I. each. The petitioner and his co-accused filed appeal against their conviction and sentence. Nasir Ahmad complainant filed revision for the enhancement of sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 18-3-1989, rejected the revision of the complainant and acquitted the co-accused namely Ghaffar and Ishtiaq and converted the conviction of the petitioner from 325 to 323, P.P.C. and sentenced him to one year's R.I. on the ground that the complainant had abused and provoked the petitioners before the latter inflicted injury. The benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also given to him. Muhammad Aslam has fled this revision against the conviction and sentence and Nazir Ahmad has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.609/M of 1989 for the enhancement of sentence. I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the evidence. He has requested for leniency in sentence. No one is present for the complainant. The State counsel has opposed the petition.

5. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that the occurrence took place in the year 1987. The petitioner was sent to jail thrice. After the rejection of his appeal, he remained in jail for 1-1/2 months before he could be released on bail by this Court in this revision. In these circumstances, I feel that the agony of trial coupled with the imprisonment suffered by the petitioner as under-trial prisoner and as convict would meet the case. Order accordingly. Resultantly, the connected revision for the enhancement of sentence fails.

SA./M-2943/L Order accordingly.