FAZAL DIN Versus UMAR BIBI

This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 15-3-1982 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby he dismissed an appeal filed by Irshad alias Baba, the petitioner herein, who was convicted under section 420/406, P.P.C. and sentenced thereunder to suffer R.L. for 3 years by Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, vide his judgment, dated 30-11-1981.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Khurshid Begum daughter of the complainant was sick for the last about two years and was suspected to be under the influence of Jadu or Taveez. The complainant's wife, namely, Mst. Inayat Begum was told about a Pir, living in Said Mitha Bazar, who was able to remove the effect of Jadu and Taveez from her daughter. She took her daughter to the petitioner, who assured her that her daughter would become quite right after Dam Darood (spiritual treatment). Subsequently, the petitioner began to visit the house of Mst. Inayat Begum, and told her about the presence of Lakhsmi in her house. He asked Mst. Inayat Begum to bring 15 Tolas of golden ornaments on which he would recite Dam Darood as a result of which wealth would come out. Initially, Mst. Inayat Begum hesitated to agree but when the petitioner assured her that the ornaments would remain with him as a trust, she gave him one Gluband weighing 3 Tolas, pair of ear rings weighing 2 Tolas 6 Mashas, one finger ring weighing 1 Tola and ear-rings in the presence of Maulvi Abdul Hameed, P.W. The petitioner took the said ornaments in the middle storey of her house and locked the door from inside on the pretext that he was reading Dam Darood. After some time, he came out of the room and locked it. He kept the key of the door with him. He told Mst. Inayat Begum that if any one opened the door, he would be burnt to ashes and the ornaments would also become dust. The petitioner again visited her house after 2/3 days. He opened the door, went inside and after some time he came out of the room and told Mst. Inayat Begum that his Dam Darood (spiritual treatment) would bear fruit only if more golden ornaments were handed over to him, otherwise the golden ornaments already kept in the room would be wasted and his children would also suffer. For this purpose, Mst. Inayat Begum went to the house of her brother, namely, Ghulam Haider, P.W. and borrowed about 15 Tolas of golden ornaments on the pretext of participating in some marriage ceremony. She gave these ornaments to the petitioner, who pretended to keep these ornaments in the same room. Once again, the petitioner demanded more ornaments from the wife of the complainant which were handed over to him. After some time, Ghulam Haider P.W. came to the house of Mst. Inayat Begum and demanded the ornaments borrowed from him by her. She narrated the entire story. At this, the lock of the said room was broken and it was found that there were no golden ornaments in the room. Then Nazir Ahmad lodged the F.I.R. on 18-3-1973 with the Police Station Yakki Gate, Lahore. The petitioner was arrested and challaned to Court to face his trial under section 420/406, P.P.C.

3. In support of its case, prosecution examined five witnesses, namely, Abdul Hameed, P.W.1, Ghulam Ahmad, P.W.2, Ghulam Haider, P.W.3, Hamid-ud-Din Haider Butt, Inspector, the 1.0. P.W.4 and Mst. Inayat Begum, the wife of the complainant as P.W.5.

4. In his statement recorded under section 342 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the charge and pleaded that he was innocent. He also produced one witness, namely, Mehar Din (D.W.1) in his defence.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as indicated in para. 1 above, vide its judgment 30-11-1981. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, on 15-3-1982. Hence, this petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and have perused the record.

7. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already undergone about 8 months of his sentence; that he is facing the agony of trial since 1974 and in these circumstances, the sentence already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice and the same may be treated as sufficient. The learned State counsel has conceded it. He has, however, submitted that the conviction of the petitioner may be maintained.

In view of the above, I, while maintaining the conviction of the IE petitioner, reduce his sentence to the one already undergone.

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

N.H.Q./I-53/L Sentence reduced.