Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 327 of 1973, heard on 18th September,1982.

---S. 325/34-Sentence, reduction in-Petitioners besides detention for a fortnight as under-trial prisoners and agony of a trial for over 1,i years, also suffered imprisonment of about Ii months each-Revision petition coming up for hearing more than 9 years after its institution-Held, not proper to remand petitioners to jail for unexpired portion of sentence--Sentence reduced to term already undergone by petitioners.-[Sentence].

Nemo for Petitioners.

Qazi Muhammad Yasin for the State.

Date of hearing : 18th September, 1982.

Mukhtat Ahmad and Ahmad petitioners were convicted under sections 3251342, P. P. C.' by Magistrate First Class, Lyallpur (now Faisalabad). They were sentenced to one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100 each under section 325, P. P. C.. and three months' R.I. each under section 342, P. P. C. On appeal their conviction and sentence under section 342, P. P. C. was set aside but that under section. 325/34, P. P. C. was main tained. They have come up in revision to this Court.

2. The case of the prosecution was that on 28th January, 1971 both the petitioners caused injuries to Mst. Begum Bibi and her mother Mst. Rehmat Bibi and later wrongfully confined them and latter's husband Abdul Rehman in their house.

Mst. Begum Bibi and Rehmat Bibi were medically examined on 31st January, 1971. Mst. Begum Bibi had four injuries, out of which injury No. 1 on the right forearm was declared grievous. Mst. Rehmat Bibi had five injuries out of which injuries Nos. 1 and 2, on the left and right forearm respectively, were declared grievous.

3. The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against them. Three witnesses were produced in defence who stated that no occurrence of the type ever took place and the petitioners were falsely implicated.

4. Nobody ,has appeared on behalf of the petitioners to prosecute this petition. I have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned State counsel. The prosecution version of the occurrence is supported by Mst. Rehmat Bibi and Begum Bibi, the injured P. Ws. Their evidence has been accepted by the Courts below and I see no reason to differ with the findings that it were the petitioners who caused injuries to the aforesaid injured P. W. The conviction under section 325/34, P. P. C. is thus well founded.

5. The question of sentence, however, requires consideration. Mukhtar petitioner was arrested in this case on 1st February, 1971 and was released on bail on 15th February, 1.971 while Ahmad was arrested on 31st March, 1971 and was released on bail on 17th April, 1971. They were convicted by the trial Court on 21st September,. 1972 and were admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27th September, 1972. Their appeal was dismissed on 21st March, 1973 and they were admitted to bail by this Court on 27th April, 1973. In this way, besides detention for a fortnight as under-trial prisoners and agony of a trial for over one and a half years, they have suffered R. I. of about one and a half months each. Unfortunately, this revision has come up for hearing more than nine years after its institution. During all this period the petitioners suffered mental agony with the fear of imprisonment hanging over their heads which by itself is a punishment. After such a long time it will not be proper to remand the petitioners to jail for the unexpired portion of their sentence. Consequently, I reduce their sentence of imprisonment to the term already undergone by them. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. In default of its payment they will undergo rigorous imprison ment as ordered by the trial Court. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.