Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 589 of 1975/BWP, decided on 23rd November, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 326‑‑Statement of injured person fully corroborated from medical evidence‑‑Evidence of motive also not traversed‑‑Even if testimony of relation witnesses excluded, conclusion arrived at by Courts below amply justified‑‑ conviction maintained.

‑‑‑S. 326 Conviction-‑Sentence‑‑Accused remaining in lock‑up as an under‑trial prisoner for one year and four months and further confined in jail for a month even after conviction‑‑Revision petition of accused also pending since long‑‑Sentence reduced to one already undergone in circumstances.

M.M.A. Pirzada for Petitioner.

M.A. Hameed for the State.

Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1985.

This Criminal Revision assails the judgment, dated 2‑7‑1975 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, whereby he upheld, the conviction of the petitioners Bashir under section 326, P.P.C. and Shahra under section 323, P.P.C. as recorded by the trial Magistrate in his judgment, dated 11‑6‑1975. The former was awarded R.I. for three years with a fine of Rs.600 while the latter only a fine of Rs.600. In default both were to suffer R.I. for six months each.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that all the P.Ws. were close relations of the injured Ghulam Qadir who earlier had been convicted at the instance of the petitioner Bashir for having beaten him. I don't think the argument has any efficacy because in the estimation of the Courts below, the injured's own statement was found fully corroborated from the medical evidence. The element of motive was also not traversed, in that, the petitioner Bashir wanted to take the hand A of Mst. Mumtaz Begum but having failed to get it on account of her marriage with the injured Ghulam Qadir, he committed some act of indecency towards her 5/6 months ago and was, therefore, beaten down. Though P.W. Ghulam Qadir was convicted on the former count, 'yet the sense of losing the lady still persisted in the mind of the petitioner. The motive cut on either side. For this reason, even if the testimony of the relation witnesses was excluded, the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below was amply justified.

3. The judgment of the learned trial Magistrate shows that the petitioner Bashir had been in the lock up as an under‑trial for one year and four months. He was further confined in jail for a month even after conviction. Keeping in view the long pendency of the Revision and the sizable period of his detention as an under trial, I reduce the period of his sentence to the one already undergone maintaining the fine. So is the fine imposed on the other petitioner maintained. The Revision petition, with the exception of the alteration in the sentence indicated above, is dismissed.

4. Before parting with the judgment, I have to express my concern over the fact that this petition was ordered to be put up "for final disposal in the month of November, 1975", vide order, dated 11‑7‑1975 passed at Lahore. The file was duly received at Bahawalpur, vide letter No. 17203‑Criminal, dated 14‑7‑1975. The record shows that it was, for the first time, put up before the Court on 23‑4‑1985 that is after a period of about ten years. The Additional Registrar, Bahawalpur Bench, will sort it out immediately and place this dereliction of duty before the learned Senior Judge nominated here for suitable action with an intimation to me at Lahore.

M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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