MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus THE STATE
Muhammad Nawaz petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 326; P.P.C. for having injured Mst. Manzoor Fatima (P.W.1) by Magistrate 1st Class on 13‑11‑1983 and sentenced to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.3,000 or in default thereof four months' S.I. On appeal the case was remanded by the learned Sessions Judge Khushab on 28‑3‑1984 for fresh trial.
2. On retrial the learned Magistrate again recorded the conviction under section 326, P.P.C. on 30‑4‑1985 and sentenced him to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 or in default thereof three months' S.I. Both the parties felt dissatisfied, the petitioner filing an appeal and the complainant a revision petition for enhancement of the sentence. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 29‑5‑1985 and the revision partly allowed enhancing the fine from Rs.500 to Rs.1,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I. The fine, if realised was ordered to be paid to Mst. Manzoor Fatima the injured P.W. as compensation. So, the present revision petition by the convict/accused.
3. The question of second revision petition stands settled by the Supreme Court as reported in Muhammad Shafiq and others v. Abdul Hayee and others 1987 S C M R 1371 second revision is not competent but the High Court can A look to the propriety/legality/interest of justice under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. So, the request to treat the petition as one under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. is accepted.
4. The petitioner has already faced two trials and undergone the agony of two appeals with the added trouble of moving the High Court in the present petition. He has been behind the bars for about 1‑1/2 years. The statement of Dr. Malik Muhammad Khan (P.W.8) has been referred to. Mst. Manzoor Fatima had five very minor simple injuries and only one grievous injury, which was fracture of the little finger. For these injuries the sentence already undergone seems to be sufficient.
5. The petition is, therefore, accepted and the sentence already undergone is considered sufficient. Disposed of.
N.H.Q./M‑1819/L Sentence reduced.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR vs THE STATE and anothers 1999 MLD 2450