ZAFAR IQBAL vs STATE & another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction of the petitioner, Zafar Iqbal, for throwing acid on the complainant's wife. The core legal question was whether the conviction under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was sustainable despite allegations of delayed FIR and non-production of the victim's clothing, and whether the quantum of sentence (Arsh and imprisonment) was appropriate. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the victim's testimony, supported by medico-legal evidence and physical marks of injury, sufficiently established guilt. The Court held that even disfigurement constitutes an offence under Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, finding the original sentence of seven years imprisonment and Rs. 500,000 as Arsh to be excessive given the extent of the injury (five percent facial disfigurement), the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence. The appeal was partially accepted, reducing the Arsh to Rs. 300,000 and the imprisonment to five years, with the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does facial disfigurement caused by acid throwing constitute an offence under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on the victim's testimony and medico-legal report despite a delay in lodging the FIR?
- Does the non-production of the victim's clothing at the time of the occurrence automatically invalidate a conviction for acid throwing?
- Is the Supreme Court empowered to reduce the quantum of sentence and Arsh if it finds the trial court's punishment excessive?
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Sardar Muhammad Raza, J.--Zafar Iqbal seeks leave to appeal from the judgment dated 10.6.2009 of a learned Judge in chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby, criminal revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed and his conviction under Section 336/34, PPC was upheld along with sentence to imprisonment for 7-years and payment of Arsh to the tune of Rs,500,000/-.
2. Zafar Iqbal, along with his co-accused Ghulam Hussain and Adnan is said to have had thrown acid on Mst. Sahib Bibi, wife of complainant Muhammad Iqbal, as a result of which, she sustained acid burns on her face, neck and left arm, covering 17 percent of the body area.
3. The occurrence is sufficiently proved by the injured lady, who herself appeared in Court, carrying the marks of occurrence. Her statement is duly supported, by the medico-legal report (P:86). Zafar Iqbal, petitioner in his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C, admitted the occurrence, but threw the burden on his co-accused Ghulam Hussain. This was done at a time when Ghulam Hussain had already died during the trial. Third accused, Adnan is, however, acquitted most probably, for the reason that overt act of throwing acid is not attributed to him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a delay in lodging the FIR and that the dress worn by the victim at the time of occurrence had not been produced. No doubt, the FIR is delayed, but it has not been indicated as to what benefit the prosecution has derived by such delay. The clothes, even if produced, would have, at the most, proved the same thing which reluctantly was given in the medico-legal report. It cannot be ruled out that due to damage to the clothes, the victim might have changed the dress, which she did. Her personal appearance with marks of occurrence on her body is sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of offence. The Courts below have rightly held him guilty.
5. Even disfigurement is sufficient to constitute offence under Section 336, PPC and hence the petitioner was rightly convicted there under, However; it is to be noticed that the principal sentence is that of Arsh and the Court can also award sentence of imprisonment to the extent of 10 years, in the given circumstances of each case. We have found that the facial disfigurement is only to the extent of five percent Which might be a scar of small size, the compensation (Arsh) to the extent of Rs,500,000/- and the sentence of 7-years over and above is a bit on the heavier side.
6. Consequently, the petition after conversion into appeal is 'partially accepted to the extent of sentence alone. The petitioner is sentenced to the payment of Rs,300,000/- as Arsh and an imprisonment of 5-years with benefit under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The imprisonment in default will remain intact.