MLIHAMMAD AKBAR Versus THE STATE
This revision petition has been filed by Muhammad Akbar son of Allah Ditta and Raja Khan son of Mal‑an, both Gujjar by caste, residents of village Rangra, Tehsil and District Gujrat, challenging their conviction and sentences under sections 452 and 323 read with section 34 P.P.C. recorded by Ch. Nasar Javed, Magistrate Ist Class, Gujrat, vide order dated 17‑12‑74 and upheld by Sh. Bashir Ahmad, learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat, vide order dated 18‑4‑1975. The sentence awarded to the petitioners is six months, R.I. under section 452 P.P.C. and two months, R.I. under section 323 P.P.C.
2. The prosecution case briefly was that Mst. Rashida Begum complainant while sleeping inside her house on the night between 25th and 26th April, 1973 was assaulted by the petitioners after committing house trespass. The occurrence was witnessed by Farman Ali (P.W.3) and Ahmad Khan (P.W.4). The motive for the assault was stated to be that on 24‑4‑1973 one Latif cobbler came to the complainant's house for purchasing ghee. Akbar petitioner after Latif had departed cut joke with the complainant satirically, whereupon she abused him. Further there took place exchange of abuses between the complainant lady and mother of Akbar petitioner.. However, Muhammad Hussain P.W. separated them. The complainant was examined medically by Lady Dr. Iqbal Banu (P.W.6) on 26‑4‑1973 who found about 12 injuries on her person which were simple in nature caused with blunt weapon vide medico‑legal report Ex.PB.
3. At the trial prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. Of them Rashida Begum Complainant (P.W.1), Farman (P.W.3) her brother and Ahmed Khan (P.W.4), deposed about the occurrence and Muhammad Hussain (P.W.5) narrated about the motive part of the story. Lady Dr. Iqbal Banu (P.W.6) has proved the injuries of the complainant. Muhammad Amir S.I (P.W.8) stated that he investigated the case and challaned the petitioners to Court.
4. The petitioners when examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation and produced Imam Din and Muhammad Khan in their defence who mainly stated about the good conduct of the petitioners and that they were not previous convicts.
5. Learned trial Court believing the prosecution case convicted and sentenced the petitioners, as indicated above. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, hence this revision.
6. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioners therefore, I have myself gone through the record with the assistance of learned State counsel. This revision was admitted on 5‑6‑1975 as it was contended that injuries on the prosecutrix were possible by friendly hands or by repeated falls on the ground and that there was delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R., therefore, the sentence was suspended by this Court on 16‑6‑1975, as by that date the petitioners had already served two months and 17 days of their sentence out of total sentence of six months, R.I. The evidence on the record clearly spells out the guilt of the petitioners and the two Courts below have rightly convicted them. As for the I question of sentence I think that it is a fit case for reduction of sentence particularly for the reason that this revision has come up for decision after about 12 years. In view of the injuries which are minor in nature the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners would amply meet the ends of justice. The revision is disposed of m the terms indicated above. The petitioners are on bail. They are discharged from their bail bonds.
S.G.D/M‑559/L. Order accordingly.