PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 38
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 363 & 354--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Prosecution had undoubtedly proved factum of occurrence--High Court does not find material contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses--Prosecution witnesses and the eye-witnesses, the eye-witness, (PW-5)-the eye-witness and PW-9 the victim have remained consistent, despite lengthy cross-examination--Appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by trial Court--The case of convict-appellant calls for a lenient view--convict-appellant has already served about 03 months in Jail--Consequently, ends of justice will be served by maintaining conviction of convict-appellant--Appeal dismissed.
[Para 9 & 10] A & B
Mr. Zia-ur-Rehman Chaudhary, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Ali Hassan, APG for State.
Nemo for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 8.2.2022.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 38
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Miss Aalia Neelum, J.
MUHAMMAD JAMIL--Appellant
versus
STATE etc--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 69 of 2016, heard on 8.2.2022.
Judgment
The appellant-Muhammad Jamil son of Muhammad Siddique, Caste Faqeer, resident of Mohallah Marajpura, Police Station Sadar Sheikhupura was involved in case FIR No. 375 of 2014, dated 14.05.2014, registered under Sections 363, 376, 511, PPC, Police Station Saddar, District Sheikhupura and was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. The learned trial Court seized with the matter in terms of judgment dated 06.01.2016, convicted the appellant under Section 363, PPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months with the fine of Rs. 5000/-and in case of default in payment thereof, the convict would further undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. The appellant was also convicted under Section 354, PPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with the fine of
Rs. 5000/-. In case of non-payment of fine, the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. Both the sentences would run concurrently. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellant.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, the appellant has assailed his conviction through filing instant Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2016.
3. The prosecution story as contained in the FIR (Ex.PB) lodged on the complaint filed by Muhammad Saleem the complainant (since dead) is that on 14.05.2014 at about 01:30 p.m. his (complainant) daughter namely Saman Saleem aged 07 years (PW-9) was standing outside of door and she suddenly disappeared. The complainant along with Muhammad Akram Khan (PW-5) and Abbas Ali (P W-4) started search of her daughter. When they reached near constructed house, he along with PWs heard hue and cry of kid. He (the complainant) along with PWs entered into the house, where they saw that the appellant-Muhammad Jameel was trying to commit Zina with the minor namely Saman Salim (PW-9), who was weeping loudly. The appellant tried to escape but people of locality apprehended him and gave him beating with Dandas and Sotas.
4. After registration of case, the investigation of this case was entrusted to Ghulam Abbas, S.I (PW-6), who having found the accused/appellant guilty, prepared report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and sent the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction. On 11.07.2014, the learned trial Court formally charge sheeted the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its version produced as many as nine (09) prosecution witnesses.
5. The learned trial Court after recording evidence and evaluating the evidence available on record in the light of the arguments advanced from both sides, found the prosecution version proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, which resulted into conviction of the appellant in the afore stated terms.
6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has opted not to object conviction of the appellant, however, prayed for reduction in his sentence. Learned counsel further stated that the appellant is the first offender, so a lenient view may be taken.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General has not opposed the contention raised on behalf of the appellant.
8. Heard. Record perused.
9. As the learned counsel for the appellant has not opted to assail conviction rendered by the learned trial Court against the appellant, therefore, this Court does not feel it necessary to discuss in detail the prosecution evidence available on the record. However, this Court finds that the prosecution had undoubtedly proved the factum of occurrence. This Court does not find material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is also proved from the evidence on record that the prosecution witnesses i.e. Abbas Ali (PW-4)-the eye-witness, Muhammad Akram (PW-5)-the eye-witness and Mst. Saman Saleem (PW-9)-the victim have remained consistent, despite lengthy cross-examination. I am persuaded to hold that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court.
10. However, as regards the question of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court to the convict-appellant is concerned, I have carefully gone through the record available before the Court. Nevertheless, the case of the convict-appellant calls for a lenient view. The convict-appellant has already served about 03 months in the Jail. Consequently, the ends of justice will be served by maintaining the conviction of the convict-appellant inflicted by the learned trial Court on him but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the convict-appellant. However, the amount of fine and sentence in default thereof will remain intact. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall remain intact. The appellant is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds stand discharged subject to deposit of fine.
(A.A.K.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments