GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus THE STATE

The petitioner has filed this criminal revision against the impugned judgment, dated 4-4-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. Muhammad Ayub the complainant has also filed Criminal Revision No.421 of 1991 for enhancement of sentence of the petitioner Ghulam Mustafa Both revision petitions shall be disposed of by this one judgment.

2. The petitioner alongwith Muhammad Saleem co-accused was challaned and sent up for trial by the police in case F.I.R. No. 157 registered on 5-4-1989 at Police Station Jaranwala under section 307/34, P.P.C. on the complaint of Muhammad Ayub who alleged that on 5-4-1989 at 10 a.m. Ghulam Mustafa petitioner armed with pistol and Muhammad Saleem were standing with a bicycle on the way. Muhammad Saleem raised Lalkara and abused the complainant on which Ghulam Mustafa petitioner had fired at him but he was luckily saved. After alighting down the tractor the complainant intended to run away but the petitioner Ghulam Mustafa fired second shot which hit him on the left side of chest. On hue and cry the P. Ws. reached. Ghulam Mustafa petitioner while firing alongwith Muhammad Saleem acquitted co-accused escaped.

3. The petitioner alongwith acquitted co-accused was challaned and sent up for trial. Charge was framed under section 307/34, P.P.C. against them to which they denied and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined 6 P.W5. in all to substantiate its case. Muhammad Zubair P.W.1, Muhammad Aslam P.W.2 and Muhammad Ayub P.W.3 the complainant stated the ocular account of the prosecution case. Dr. Tariq Ali Khan P.W.4 had medically examined Muhammad Ayub, the complainant. Bashir Ahmad, A.S.I., P.W.5 had drafted complaint Exh.P.A, on the statement of P.W.3, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./l was recorded. After completion of the investigation P.W.5 challaned the petitioner. P.W.6 Muhammad Sadiq had witnessed the recovery of pistol P.1 from the accused at his instance from the roof of his house and attested vide memo. Exh.P.F.

5. The petitioner when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence against him and the recovery of pistol P.1. He produced D.W.1 Ghulam Mustafa and D.W.2 Muhammad AjmaI who stated about the innocence of the petitioner. The petitioner had not made statement as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.

6. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment, dated 7-2-1991 had convicted and sentenced the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. to undergo three years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default thereof two months' R.I. The fine if realized Rs. 1,000 was directed to be paid to the complainant Muhammad Ayub as compensation. The petitioner was extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The co-accused Muhammad Saleem was acquitted by the trial Court.

7. The petitioner filed appeal against the conviction and sentence which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment, dated 4-4-1991.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously challenged the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, but has prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence. Learned counsel for the parties have calculated the period for which the petitioner remained in jail as under-trial and conviction, which comes to one year eleven months fourteen days. I am of the view that the period already undergone in jail by the petitioner as under-trial and conviction alongwith enhanced compensation to the injured complainant Muhammad Ayub shall meet the ends of justice. The petitioner has been given verbal notice for enhancement of compensation which has been accepted by learned counsel for the petitioner. The injured Muhammad Ayub is also present. He has consented that if he is awarded compensation he shall not prosecute the case any further.

9. The petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) as compensation to the injured P.W. and in default thereof shall suffer three months' R.I. The fine of Rs. 2,000 imposed on the petitioner is reduced to Rs. 1,000 and. if he fails to pay the fine he shall further undergo R.I. for one month.

10. With above modification the revisions are disposed of. The petitioner is on bail and his bail bonds are discharged.

11. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine and compensation within one month in the trial Court in default thereof he shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

N.H.Q./G-240/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence reduced.