BASHIR AHMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition arose from concurrent proceedings wherein the petitioners were convicted by the trial magistrate for offences under sections 337/F(i) and 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and subsequently had their convictions modified by the appellate court, which acquitted them under section 379 while upholding the conviction under section 337/F(i). The core legal question concerned the appropriateness of the sentence and the conviction under the circumstances of a settled money dispute and protracted trial proceedings. The Lahore High Court accepted the petitioners' concession not to press the revision on merits, provided their sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, coupled with an undertaking to deposit the Daman amount. The court held that suffering the agony of a protracted trial and prolonged pendency warranted a reduction of sentence to the one already undergone. The key principle laid down is that appellate and revisional courts may temper substantive imprisonment sentences to the period already undergone in light of mitigating factors such as protracted litigation and settlement of underlying disputes, subject to compliance with financial penalties like Daman.
- Whether the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the period already undergone in view of a protracted trial?
- Can a criminal revision petition be disposed of on the basis of a statement not to press on merits coupled with a sentence reduction request?
- What is the effect of failure to abide by an undertaking to deposit the Daman amount in a hurt case?
- Section 337/A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337/F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' M. NAEEMULLAH KHAN SHERWANI, J. ---Petitioners , namely, Bashir Ahmad, Abdul Raoof and Amir Baz along with Said Rasool were tried by a learned Magistrate Ist Class, Khushab for offences under sections 337/A(iii)/379/ 511/34, P.P.C. In case F.I.R. No,105, dated 19-6-1997, registered with police station Mitha Tiwana, at the instance of Ahmad Sher complainant. The learned trial Magistrate by virtue of his judgment dated 31-7-2002, found the petitioners guilty of the charge, convicted them under section 337/F(i) P.P.C. And sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one year as Ta'zir with further direction to pay an amount of Rs,1000 to the victim as Daman. They were also convicted under section 379 P.P.C. And sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, accorded to them. Their co-accused, Said Rasool was acquitted of the charge.
2. The convicts challenged their convictions and sentences before learned Sessions Judge, Khushab by filing an appeal, which was entrusted to a learned Additional Session Judge for its disposal in accordance with law. The said learned Judge by virtue of his judgment dated 20-2- 2003, partly accepted the same by acquitting the petitioners of section 379 P.P.C. And reducing their sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months along with Daman from rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 337/F(i)/34 P.P.C. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to them.
3.. Being aggrieved of the said judgment, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant revision petition.
4. Precisely, prosecution story expounded by Ahmad Sher complainant (P.W.3) in his complaint (Exh.PB) is that on 18-6-1997, at deegarwela, his son, namely, Mehboob Alam was busy in grazing his sheep, when Bashir Ahmad, armed with hockey, Abdul Raoof and Amir Baz, carrying hunters, reached there. Bashir Ahmad whacked an injury on right ear of Mahboob Alam by means of his- hockey, whereas Abdul Raoof and Amir Baz, gave hunter blows on his back. All of them also caused blows on his arm and shoulder. The occurrence was viewed by the complainant, Ramzan and Ghazni Khan P.Ws. Who rescued the victim.
' Reason behind the outbreak of this incident was that there was a money dispute between the parties, which came to an end on the basis of compromise, but the petitioners nourished grudge in their minds and launched an assault upon Mahboob Alam and also took away sixty sheep of the complainant, which were later, on returned.
5. Succeeding registration of case, investigation into the crime commenced. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was prepared and submitted before the trial Court.
6. Learned trial Judge after completing all the formalities framed charge and put the same to the petitioners and their co-accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Thereafter, prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence to substantiate the allegations levelled against the accused. In response to said directions, the prosecution ventured to produce as many as seven witnesses in all.
7. All the incriminating material was put to the accused to elicit their explanation qua their innocence or otherwise as required under section 342 Cr.P.C. They vehemently controverted the allegations and proclaimed their absolute innocence in the matter.
8. Learned trial Magistrate after culmination of trial pronounced verdict of guilt against the petitioners as afore-mentioned.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that if sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced into that which they have already undergone then he will not press the revision petition on mertis. He further undertakes that the appellant will deposit the Daman amount specified in the judgment within a period of one month.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has no objection to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
11. Keeping in view submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides, I am of the view that the petitioners have already suffered a lot by facing the agony of a protracted trial and pendency of revision petition. I accordingly reduce their sentence to one already undergone by them, which will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. They will deposit Daman amount of Rs,1000 each as per their undertaking within one month to be paid' to victim of assault. In case, the petitioners fail to abide by their undertaking, the trial Court will take necessary step for the recovery of Daman amount from them.
12. This revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.