PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Note) 25
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 435/439--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/337-F(iii)--Criminal revision--As counsel for petitioner has not challenged convictions and sentences of petitioner, therefore, it has been considered piddling to debunk upon facts of case--So far as length of quantum of sentences of petitioner are concerned, keeping in view report submitted by Superintendent, District Jail, Mandi Bahauddin as to detail of incarceration of petitioner a few months are left to be undergone by petitioner, therefore, keeping in view spatial crawling of petitioner upto reaching this Court, physical ordeal and mental anguish of him and a very small period like months are left to complete out of total incarceration, all have persuaded Court to direct period already undergone by petitioner sufficient in this case and with this modification instant criminal revision is dismissed. [Para 8] A
Ch. Muhammad Lehrasib Khan Gondal, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Usman Sher Khan Gondal, Advocate for Complainant.
Mrs. Muqadass Tahira, Additional Advocate General for State.
Date of hearing: 21.10.2014.
PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Note) 25
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J.
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Rev. No. 296 of 2014, heard on 21.10.2014.
Judgment
Petitioner/convict namely Zafar Iqbal has called in question judgment dated 21.10.2013 passed by learned trial Court/Judicial Magistrate Secticn-30, Mandi Bahauddin in a case registered vide FIR No. 235 dated 14.06.2010 under Sections 324, 337-F(iii), PPC at P.S. Kuthiala Sheikhan, District Mandi Bahauddin, whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under:
i) Under Section 324, PPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
ii) Under Section 337-F(iii), PPC to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay fine to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- to each injured person.
He was also extended the benefit of Section 382-B of Cr.P.C.
2. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the petitioner filed appeal against his conviction and sentences, whereas the complainant preferred criminal revision petition, which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahaudd’in, who vide order dated 18.02.2014, which is also impugned herein, partially accepted the revision petition of the complainant and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/ convict by enhancing his sentence infra:
Under Section 324 PPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- and in defauit whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Under Section 337-F(iii), PPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months and to pay to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- to each injured while granting him the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
3. In Court the prosecution case narrated by the complainant is that on 14.06.2010 at 04:15 pm, the petitioner/convict while armed with pistol made a direct fire shot which hit Mansar Iqbal on right side of his belly, the secpnd fire shot made by petitioner/convict hit Mansar Iqbal on his left buttock, the 3rd fire shot made by him hit Taj Bibi on her left buttock. Thenceforth petitioner/convict made two fire shots repeatedly, which hit on the left bicep of Taj Bibi. When complainant stepped forward to rescue them, petitioner/convict made straight fire shot, on Asia Bibi, which landed on her left thigh. All the injured fell to the ground and the petitioner took flight from the spot.
The motive behind the occurrence was that Mansar Iqbal nephew of the complainant and the petitioner/convict grappled with each other a few days ago to the incident.
3. The investigation resoluted in guilt of the petitioner and accordingly a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was prepared, which was sent to the learned trial Court for conqmencement of trial. During the trial nine PWs were produced in order to prove the prosecution case. After the closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the allegations, imputed against him and professed his innocence. The petitioner, however, neither opted to adduce evidence in his defence nor to appear as his own witness as required under Section 340 (2), Cr.P.C.
4. The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court was rendered as mentioned above and thereafter the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court. Hence, instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner incipiently has frankly submitted that he would not contest the convictions as concurrent findings exist against the petitioner, however, he would pray for the reduction of quantum of sentence already undergone by the petitioner in view of the report submitted by the Superintendent, District Jail, Mandi Bahauddin dated 20.10.2014, according to which probable date of release of the petitioner is 05.10.2015, (if fine and Daman paid) and if after that four months are added then a few months are left to be undergone by the petitioner and if the said period is condoned keeping in view the crawling of the petitioner commencing from the Magisterial Court up to this Court, he may be satisfied. However, he would not contest the amounts of fine as well as Daman imposed by the learned trial Court enhanced by the learned appellate Court.
6. Learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant both have been found incontestable to the matter keeping in view the length of incarceration of the petitioner, however, learned counsel for the complainant has prayed for further enhancement of amounts of fine and Daman.
7. Heard. Record perused.
8. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the convictions and sentences of the petitioner, therefore, it has been considered piddling to debunk upon the facts of the case. So far as the length of quantum of sentences of the petitioner are concerned, keeping in view the report submitted by Superintendent, District Jail, Mandi Bahauddin as to the detail of the incarceration of the petitioner a few months are left to be undergone by the petitioner, therefore, keeping in view spatial crawling of the petitioner upto reaching this Court, physical ordeal and mental anguish of him and a very small period like months are left to complete out of the total incarceration, all have persuaded the Court to direct the period already undergone by the petitioner sufficient in this case and with this modification instant criminal revision is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to be released from jail indestanterly provided his payments of amounts of fine and Daman as ordered by the learned appellate Court, if he is not required in any other case.
(A.A.K.) Revision dismissed
0 Comments