ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE and another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 336/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for throwing acid on the victim, resulting in a seven-year imprisonment sentence and payment of Arsh. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence regarding the acid attack, the impact of a delayed F.I.R., and the proportionality of the sentence imposed. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the victim's testimony and the medico-legal report sufficiently established the petitioner's guilt, despite the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the non-production of the victim's clothing. The Court held that facial disfigurement constitutes an offence under Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, finding the original sentence excessive given the extent of the injury, the Court partially accepted the appeal to reduce the sentence, lowering the Arsh to Rs. 300,000 and the imprisonment term to five years, while granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the non-production of a victim's clothing in an acid attack case vitiate the prosecution's case when other evidence is present?
- Is facial disfigurement sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of imprisonment and Arsh if it finds the original punishment disproportionate to the injury sustained?
- 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, P.P.C. 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 per cent 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 F.I.R. And that the dress worn by the victim at the time of occurrence had not been produced. No doubt, the F.I.R.
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 resultantly 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, P.P.C. 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 per cent, 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.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Sohail Alias Kaloo alias Fahad vs The State 2024 YLR 470
- GHULAM ABBAS and another vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 1273