Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Revision No. 522 of 1986, decided on 7th December, 1986.
---S. 307/34--Conviction and sentence--Quantum of--No defect in judgments of lower Courts--Judgments found to be based on correct appraisal of evidence of victims of attack--Points raised in revision having been dealt with by Courts below--Both victims receiving one grievous injury each--Conviction maintained but sentence of three years' R.I. , held, would be proportionate to crime in circumstances.
Raja Muhammad Sabir for Petitioner.
Najam-ul-Zaman, A.A.-G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 7th December, 1986.
The appellants Feroz son of Sher Muhammad and Falak Sher son of Nawab residents of Tahru-Sahmal Tehsil Chiniot have preferred this Revision Petition assailing their conviction maintained in an appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang.
2. The appellants were tried by Ch. Amir Ali, a Magistrate Jhang on the charge under section 307 read with section 34 of the P.P.C. vide judgment, dated 5-7-1986, the learned Magistrate found the appellants guilty on the said charge and thus sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years each and to y' pay a fine of Rs.2,000 each or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another term of three months each.
3. The appellants challenged their conviction by taking an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27-5-1984 at about 8.00/9.00 a.m. both the appellants armed with Sotas way-laid and launched murderous assault on Saad Ullah PW-2 and Abdullah PW-4 while they were taking cattles to a pond.
5. Abdullah the victim of the attack had received three injuries out of which one was found dangerous. The said dangerous injury had caused fracture of right 7th and 8th rib.
6. Saad Ullah also received two injuries one of which was grievous
7. I have perused the record of this case and I have noticed that the prosecution case stood established through the testimony of the victims of the attack. I have also perused the judgment of both the Courts below, and I do not find any defect in the judgment based upon the correct appraisal of the evidence.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner repeated the argument raised in the Court below, but since they have been dealt with properly, therefore, I need not repeat them. Lastly it was contended that the punishment was too severe. I have examined this contention carefully. I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since both the victims of the attack had received one grievous injury each, therefore, in my view the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment would be proportionate to the crime. Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to three years, but the sentence of fine is maintained.
9. With these, observations, this revision petition is disposed of.
S.A./742/L Sentence reduced.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer