Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1986, decided on 9th February, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 354-‑Conviction‑‑Quantum of sentence‑‑Petition admitted for consideration of quantum of sentence only‑‑Merits also considered at final hearing‑‑Judgments of lower Courts not suffering from any illegality‑‑Held, no case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction could be made out‑‑Conviction was maintained but sentence was reduced from one year to six months in circumstances.
Mian Muhammad Jamil for Petitioners.
Hasnat Ahmad for A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 9th February, 1986.
The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 22‑12‑1985 of Sessions Judge, Sargodha, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order, dated 30‑1‑1985 of Resident Magistrate, Sillanwali, whereof the learned Magistrate had convicted the petitioners under section 354, P.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one year.
2. The prosecution case at the trial was that the petitioners Muhammad, armed with a gun, Umar Hayat and Amir, armed with Barchhas and Manzur, armed with a Kulhari waylaid Mst. Khatoon, when she was returning to her house from the Dera and on the Lalkara raised by Muhammad to remove the Chadar of Mst. Khatoon and on his having caught her from the arm, Umar Hayat removed her Chadar, while Amir and Manzur had caught her from breasts. The accused ran away on the arrival of Malla and Muhammad Nawaz P.Ws. on hearing noise raised by Mst. Janatan, mother of Mst. Khatoon, who was accompanying her.
Motive for the occurrence was that brother of Mst. Khatoon was suspected for having insulted sister of Umar Hayat accused petitioner.
3. At the time of initial hearing, the petition was not considered worth admission on merits. However, on the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petition was admitted to o regular hearing for considering the quantum of sentence only. However, I have considered the merits of the case again and I am still of the positive view that no case for interference by way of exercise of revisional powers so far as the conviction of the petitioners is concerned, has been made out. The judgment of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality. The conviction of the petitioners is, therefore, maintained. However, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced from one year R.I. to six months' R.I. each, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. They shall be given the benefits of the provisions of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C.
S.A. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer