RUSTAM Versus THE STATE
This revision petition arises out of the judgment, dated 3-&1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar whereby he upheld the conviction of the petitioner passed against him by the Magistrate 1st Class Kaloor Kot on 15-2-1992 under section 324, P.P.C. and reduced the sentence against him from two years' R.I. to one year's R.I.
2. The brief facts of the case are that F.I.R. Exh.PA. was recorded en the written complaint of Muhammad Khalid on 3-6-1990 at about 7-30 p.m. wherein he stated that on 2-6-1990 at about 7 p.m. he alongwith his father Muhammad Tufail and his brother Muhammad Zahid was irrigating his field in Chak No.56/D.B. when for some time the water stopped running. He alongwith his brother and father went for a round of the outlet and when reached near the land of Shera he found Rustam petitioner and Ghaffar co accused armed with Kassi, Sttar armed with Soti, Sohrab, Saif Ullah and Haneef armed with Sotis and Sher with Soti while irrigating their field after diverting the water of the complainant. They prevented the accused persons and started diverting water towards their own field when Rustam etc. came and dealt a Kassi blow on the person of Muhammad Zahid which struck on his hips. Thereafter accused persons dealt Soti blows one after the other on his father and brother and they sustained injuries thereof. On the alarm raised by Muhammad Haneef, and Muhammad Aslam residents of his village, the accused spared the injured persons.
After investigation the accused were challaned and were tried by Mr. Tahir Abbas Bokhari, Magistrate 1st Class, Kallur Kot who convicted only the petitioner under section 324, P.P.C. and sentenced him to two years' R.I. The other accused were acquitted. On appeal the sentence as mentioned above was reduced from two years' R.I. to one year's R.I.
3. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, the learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset contended that he does not press this revision petition and nor he contests the conviction, in case, the sentence already undergone by the petitioner is considered as sufficient to meet the ends of justice. He further submitted that the case against the petitioner was registered on 3-6-1990 and he was arrested on the same day and was convicted on 15-2-1992 by the learned Magistrate and remained in the jail for sometime when his appeal was dismissed on 3-8-1992 and since then he is in the jail. The result according to the learned counsel therefore, is that the petitioner has remained in the jail for four months and has also undergone the agony of protracted trial and criminal litigation for a period of 2-1/2 years.
4. The learned counsel for the State concedes to this proposal and submitted that the State would be satisfied if the conviction against the petitioner is upheld and the sentence already undergone is considered to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for both sides and having gone through the evidence adduced on record and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances I consider that the petitioner has remained in the jail for about more than four months in a case under section 324, P.P.C. and has also undergone the agony of protracted trial for more than 2-1/2 years so this A sentence and the protracted trial faced by the petitioner is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The petitioner is in the jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. As the revision petition has been decided so Criminal Miscellaneous No.1/B of 1992 is disposed of. With this modification in the sentence this revision is disposed of.
N.H.Q./R-122/L Sentence reduced.