Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 8 of 1986, decided on 18th March, 1986.

‑‑‑S.439‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.304‑A‑‑Quantum of sentence‑ Accused, a poor Rehraban‑‑Compensation of Rs.5,000 awarded to father of victim considered fair‑‑Keeping accused in incarceration for two years and mulcting him of Rs.7,000, held, would place him and his family in utter neglect and destitution for that period‑‑Maintaining amount of compensation, fine of Rs.2,000 was remitted and sentence of two years reduced to 1 years in circumstances.

Mian Muhammad Akhtar for Petitioner.

Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for the State.

Date of hearing: 12th March, 1986.

This judgment will dispose of revision petition (Criminal Revision No.8 of 1986) filed by Iftikhar Ali, alias Kharoo, petitioner, against his conviction and sentence recorded under section 304‑A, P.P.C. and the Criminal Revision 82 of 1986 filed by Nazir Ahmad, complainant, for the enhancement of the sentence of Iftikhar Ali, convict.

2. I need not go into the facts of the case, as both the revision petitions have been admitted only to consider the question of sentence.

3. Iftikhar Ali, convict, has been sentenced under section 304‑A, P.P.C. to two years, rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rupees two thousand (Rs.2,000) or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a further sum of Rupees five thousand (Rs.5,000) as compensation to the father of the victim or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. It is submitted that Iftikhar Ali, convict, is a Rehra driver, a family man and otherwise very poor and that to punish him for so long a period as two years and mulct him of so large an amount as Rupees seven thousand (Rs.7,000) would bring about his total ruination, both financially and socially. On behalf of Nazir Ahmad, complainant, it is submitted that if the fine or compensation is to be reduced, then the sentence of imprisonment should be enhanced. I notice that a fair compensation of Rupees five thousand (Rs.5,000) has been awarded to Nazir Ahmad, complainant, who is the father of the victim. His interest, therefore, stands protected. Since Iftikhar Ali, convict, is a poor Rehraban, keeping him in incarceration for two years and mulcting him of Rupees seven thousand (Rs.7,000) would place him and his family in a state of utter neglect and destitution for this period of time and also ruin him. Taking all circumstances into consideration, I would reduce his sentence to one and a half years' rigorous imprisonment, and remit his fine, but would maintain the compensation awarded to the complainant.

4. For the foregoing reasons whilst maintaining the conviction of Iftikhar Ali, convict, under section 304‑A, P.P.C., I would reduce his sentence to one and a half years' rigorous imprisonment, but would maintain the compensation of Rupees five thousand (Rs.5,000) awarded by both the Courts below, which shall be payable to Nazir Ahmad, complainant, the father of the victim. In case the said compensation is not paid, Iftikhar Ali, convict, shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. shall be granted to the convict.

5. Criminal Revision 8 of 1986 filed by Iftikhar Ali, petitioner, is, therefore, partly accepted in terms of the reduction in the sentence, as stated above. Criminal Revision 82 of 1986, filed by Nazir Ahmad, petitioner, is dismissed.

S.A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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