WA LID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE

' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.---Walid Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain appellant has challenged the validity of judgment dated 4-2-2003 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge,, Kharian District Gujrat whereby the appellant was convicted and sentences as under:-

(i) Seven years rigorous imprisonment under section 324 P.P.C. With fine of Rs,10,000 (rupees ten thousand) in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months.

(ii) Seven year rigorous imprisonment under section 397 P.P.0 and for committing lurking house trespass after preparation for causing hurt.

(iii) Seven years rigorous imprisonment under section 458, P.P.0 and fine of Rs,10,000 (rupees ten thousand) in default 6 months rigorous imprisonment.

(iv) One year rigorous imprisonment under section 148 P.P.C.

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Through the same judgment Muhammad Shahbaz son of Fazal Hussain, Shabbir Hussain son of Taufail Hussain and Pervaiz Akhtar son of Aurangzaib were, however, acquitted.

4. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Ibrahim son of Fateh Muhammad P.W.5 got registered F.I.R. No,123-2000 with Police Station Sara-iAlamgir under sections 324, 397, 458, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Alleging therein that on 12-3-2000 he along with his brother were present in the house. His sister Mst. Sughran Bibi was also there and she told the complainant that some people were calling him outside and when he went outside he saw five persons in the varanda who were wearing chaders and when he asked their identity out of them two persons came forward and one of them took out the .222 rifle and asked the complainant to enter the house and to hand over to them whatever he had in his house. The second man brought out a .12 bore gun and pointed the gun to the complainant and his sister standing besides him. In the meanwhile Charagh Ali and Faisal also came there. Upon the hue and cry of the complainant party the accused started firing, hitting the complainant and his sister. Later all the five accused decamped making firing in the air. After registration of the case challlan against the accused was submitted. The learned trial Court framed that charge which was denied by the accused and they claimed trial. The prosecution produced 6 witnesses. P.W.1 Arshad Iqbal Dispenser corroborated the medical evidence and confirmed that the medico-legal reports of the victims bore the signatures of the then Medical Officer Dr., Farooq Bangush. P.W.2, Mst. Sughran Bibi is the injured P.W. Who also supported the ocular account P.W.3 Muhammad Nawaz Foot Constable narrated about the execution of warrants and proclamations of accused Muhammad Yaqub, Pervaiz Akhtar and Muhammad Shahbaz. P.W.4 Muhammad Aslam Head Constable was a formal witness who recorded the F.I.R. P.W.5 Muhammad Ibrahim was the complainant as well as the victim of the case. He supported the contents of the F.I.R. Muhammad Afzal A.S.-I. Was the I.O. Of the case who appeared in the witness box as P.W.6 and stated that according to his investigation the accused facing the trial were found guilty and the challan was submitted accordingly.

5. 'Statements of the accused were recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. Wherein they claimed innocence. From the defence side Khadim Hussain was examined as D.W.1 who stated .That the accused Pervaiz and Yaqoob were not present at the spot. C.W.1 Ghulam Sarwar was examined as Court witness for declaring Nasim-ulHassan Shah as proclaimed offender.

6. After the conclusion of the trial the present appellant was convicted.

7. At the very outset the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that he would not challenge the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court if the sentence is reduced adequately as the sentence awarded is too harsh and there is no specific role against the appellant and the co-accused of the appellant were acquitted on the same evidence. Learned State counsel opposes the appeal.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State exhaustively and perused the record of the case.

9. Both the witnesses of ocular account for injured in the same occurrence and their testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence. The appellant was found guilty during the investigation, therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly not challenged the conviction recorded against the appellant. However, it is admitted fact that the appellant is a first offender and his co accused were acquitted on the basis of the same evidence. The sentence awarded by the learned trial Court in these circumstances appears to be harsh. Therefore, while disposing of the appeal the sentence recorded under section 324 P.P.C. Is reduced to five years from seven years. The sentence recorded under section 397 P.P.C. Is reduced to five years from seven years and the sentence recorded under section 458 P.P.C. Is also reduced to five years from seven years. The sentence awarded under section 148 P.P.C. Is maintained. The fine is also maintained, however, the appellant shall undergo six months simple imprisonment in default of the payment of fine. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The benefit of the section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Be also extended to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Sentence reduced.