GHULAM MURTAZA Versus State
MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J.--- Ghulam Murtaza petitioner along with co-accused Muhammad Sharif was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Phalia District Mandi Bahauddin in case FIR No.27/2019 under sections 324, 34, 337-F(iii). P.P.C., Police Station Pahrianwali, District Mandi Bahauddin and vide judgment dated 10.04.2021, the learned trial Court while acquitting the co-accused, Muhammad Sharif, convicted the petitioner under section 324, P.P.C. and Sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of four years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further 10 (ten) days simple imprisonment. The petitioner was also convicted under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. for inflicting three different injuries to injured and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of two years for each injury along with payment of "Daman" amount Rs.20,000/- each total amounting to Rs.60,000/-. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to him. Challenging his above conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred appeal which was dismissed on 10.7.2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phalia.
2. Aggrieved by his above noted conviction and sentence, the convict/petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.
3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the FIR (Ex.PA) are that on 25.01.2019 at about 6:45 p.m, Muhammad Nawaz (PW/8) uncle of the complainant, informed him through telephone call that accused Ghulam Murtaza (petitioner) along with co-accused, Muhammad Sharif (since acquitted) want to resolve the issue about exchange of hot words, upon which the complainant, Rafaqat Ali (PW.3) along with his brother Muhammad Fazil (PW.7) and their father Muhamad Rafiq went to the house of Muhammad Nawaz (PW.8.). When they reached in front of the house of their uncle Muhammad Nawaz, the accused started exchange of hot words with the brother of complainant namely Muhammad Fazil. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Sharif (acquitted accused) raised a lalkara, upon which accused Ghulam Murtaza (convict) made a straight fire which hit on upper part of his right thigh, second fire hit inner side of right thigh of Muhammad Fazil and third fire by him was hit back side of right thigh of said Muhammad Fazil (PW.7). Upon their hue and cry, witnesses Muhammad Taj and Muhammad Nawaz along with others attracted at the spot and rescued the complainant party.
4. The matter was reported to local police by the complainant and after fulfilment of all codal formalities, report under section under section 173, Cr.P.C. Cr.P.C. was submitted before the learned trial Court, formal charge was framed on 25.04.20219 against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case prosecution recorded nine witnesses including injured Muhammad Fazil as PW.8, complainant as PW.7, Ghulam Raza-SI/I.O. as PW.9, Dr. Abrar Azhar who medically examined and issued MLC Exh. PC, diagram Exh.PC/3 and X-ray report Ex.PC/2 was introduced as PW.3, whereas, Muhammad Sadiq, Muhammad Taj and Muhammad Ansar (1300/C) were given up by the prosecution being unnecessary.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which they denied the occurrence.
7. The learned counsel initiated arguments but considering that two courts below have concurrently declared the petitioner as guilty, he turned to his alternate prayer that he would not challenge the conviction, however, prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is facing the trial since the year 2019 and was incarcerated since 24.05.20219; that there is delay in lodging of FIR, contradiction in medical is visible, three injuries with blackening but no exit wounds. No bullet was recovered from the body of injured. Pistol did not match with empties. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that a lenient view may be taken by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him.
8. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this revision petition by contending that already a lenient view has been taken with regard to the quantum of sentence qua the petitioner.
9. I have considered the respective arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their assistance.
10. Both the courts below after proper and correct appreciation and reappraisal of the entire evidence has held the petitioner as guilty and no misreading or non-reading of evidence could be found in the ocular account and recovery to justify interference in the conviction of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court upholds the judgments of Courts below to the extent of conviction against the present petitioner. Coming to the question of sentence, it has been observed that there was delay of six hours in lodging the FIR and contradictions in medical and ocular account; three injuries with blackening but no exit wounds. Occurrence took place at the spur of moments. Co-accused stood acquitted and pistol did not match with the empties. All these circumstances make the case of petitioner one of mitigations.
11. Vide order dated 29.07.2021, a report was called for from the Superintendent Jail concerned with regard to the served/un-served sentence of the petitioner including the remissions, if any, mentioning his expected date of release; same is available on file, according to which the petitioner has served out two years eleven months and eight days out of his sentence till 05.8.2021 and his probable date of release is 26.08.2022. Therefore, quite a sufficient period of sentence has already been undergone by him. Under these circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment under section 324, P.P.C. which the petitioner has already undergone is taken sufficient to meet the ends of justice and the same is modified accordingly. Other sentence under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. would remain intact which would run concurrently with sentence under section 324, P.P.C. however, sentences of fine imposed by the learned trial Court i.e. Rs.50,000/- and "Daman" amount Rs.60,000/- in toto, are kept intact; which the petitioner shall be liable to pay as per law and after payment, he shall be released from Jail.
12. With the above modifications/observations the revision petition is dismissed. The record of the learned trial court be sent back immediately and case property, if any, be disposed of in accordance with law.
SA/G-10/L Sentence reduced.