Husnain Ijaz vs State, etc

Husnain Ijaz (accused/petitioner) along with two others (Shahid Ali and Bash arat Ali) faced trial before the Magistrate Section 30, Shakargarh in case FIR No. 312/2004 under Section s 324/337- A(iii), 337-L(ii)/337- D/109/34, PPC registered at Police Station Shakargarh and on conclusion of trial vide judgment dated 2.11.2009 accused Shahid Ali was acquitted of the charges, since Basharat Ali co-accused absconded therefore, file to his extent was consigned to wait for his arrest, and Husnain Ijaz accused/petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under: Under Section 324, PPC sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as Arsh.

Under Section 337-D, PPC sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and Rs. 50,000/- as Arsh.

Under Section 337-A(iii), PPC sentenced to seven years and Rs. 27576.2/- as Arsh.

The said judgment of conviction came under consideration before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in an appeal filed by Husnain Ijaz convict/petitio ner and vide judgment dated 20.01.2010 , the convictions under Sections 324 and 337-D, PPC were sustained however sentences were altered as under: Under Section 324, PPC the sentence of seven years imprisonment was upheld, however , order with regard to payment of Arsh set-aside.

Under Section 337-D sentence of impriso nment was set-aside and payment of Arsh was ordered equal to 1/3rd of Diyat.

Whereas, Conviction under Section 337-A(iii), PPC was altered to one under Section 337-F(iii), PPC and sentence of payment of Arsh was converted into payment of Daman of Rs. 24000/-.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., was extended. This judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge has been assailed through the instant criminal revision, whereas, Suo Moto proceedings (Crl. Misc. No. 3662.M/2015) relate to the notice issued to the surety of the convict/ petitioner and it were initiated at the time when said Husnain Ijaz convict/petitioner had disappeared from this Court. Both these matters are being decided through this judgment.

2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on the fateful day and time the complainant Ghulam Qader (PW-1) went to Darman Chowk to see his brother-in-law Murad Ali who was sitting in a building material store and suddenly Husnain Ijaz accused/petitioner armed with two pistols in both of his hands, along with two unknown accused persons came and started firing on Murad Ali (injured PW-2), hitting his right flank, right buttock, left ribs and left hand, whereupon, he (Murad Ali) fell own. Muhammad Hanif who was sitting there also received injuries.

Witnesses namely Atif Ikram, Muhammad Shahbaz and Malik Ghulam Rasool attracted to the Spot Murad Ali was taken to the hospital.

3. Subsequently , Murad Ali (PW-2) injured through an application nominated Shahid Malik and Basharat Malik as co-accused of Husnain convict/petitioner and all three were sent up to face trial.

4. Today , the learned counsel for the convict/petitioner started arguments on merits of the case but when confronted that specific and direct oral evidence coming through the mouth of Ghulam Qader complainant (PW-1) and injured witness Murad Ali (PW-2) corroborated by medical evidence includ ing the statement of Dr. Khalid Mahmoud Ashraf (PW-13) as well as recoveries had come on the record, which was sufficient evidence to record conviction against him, the learned counsel came out with the alternate plea that convict/ petitioner has already served out major part of his substantial sentence, therefore, he would not press his criminal revision to challenge the convictions, however , argued that convict/petitioner remained under trial prisoner for more than three and a half years, then remained behind the bars for almost seven months as convict prisoner and has also earned remissions of more than about one year and three months, thus the unexpired portion of sentence is about one year and six months. The learned counsel therefore, contends that he will be satisfied if the sentences are reduced to the period already undergone by him.

5. After hearing the learned counsel and examining the record, this Court is conv inced that since the prosecution witnesses are firm in their statements, which could not be shattered during cross-examination and further their statements also find corroboration from documentary evidence and the recoveries, therefore, the learned counsel for the convict/petitioner has very wisely chosen not to challenge his conviction on either of the charge.

6. Coming to the quantum of sentence, this is matter of fact that sentence of imprisonment (seven years) has been recorded only under Section 324, PPC, and keeping in view the facts and circum stances of the instant only this sentence can be reconsidered and accor dingly while sustaining the said conviction under Section 324, PPC, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the term already undergone by the convict/petitioner .

However , the sentences provided under Sections 337-D and 337-F(iii), PPC i.e. payment of Arsh and daman, are mandatory , as such, the convictions as well as sentences on both these two charges are upheld and sustained.

7. With above alteration in quantum of sentence only to the extent of Section 324, PPC, the criminal appeal is C dismissed .

8. As regards Crl. Misc. No. 3662-M/2015 (proceedings against the surety), this court has taken note of the fact that ultimately the petitioner was arrested and now his sentence has also been reconsidered, therefore, this Court is convinced that purpose in issuing notice to his surety , has been duly served. Consequently , proceedings against the surety are dropped and Crl. Misc. No. 3662-M/2015 is disposed of .