NOOR AHMED vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the conviction of the respondent under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, was set aside. The prosecution case was that the respondent inflicted hatchet blows on the appellant during daylight, causing serious injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction in light of the eyewitness testimony, the serious injuries sustained by the appellant, and the improbability of substitution in a single-accused case. The Supreme Court held that while there was sufficient evidence against the respondent and the conviction ought to be restored, considering the passage of time, the fact that the respondent had already undergone a period of imprisonment exceeding two years, and the desire to maintain harmony between the parties, the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone, coupled with an enhanced fine to be paid as compensation to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court may mould the sentence by balancing the sufficiency of evidence for conviction with mitigating circumstances such as prolonged custody and post-offence reconciliation between the parties.
- Whether a conviction under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be restored in an appeal against acquittal when evidence sufficiently proves the charge?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while upholding a conviction and enhancing compensation?
- Whether substitution of an accused is considered a rare phenomenon in cases involving a single accused and daylight attacks with serious injuries?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment, dated 19-10-1993 of the Lahore High Court, whereby the conviction of Muhammad Anwar, respondent, on a charge under section 307, P.P.C. Recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, Okara, was set aside.
2. According to the prosecution, on 3-9-1980 at about 5 p.m. The appellant was returning to his house. Suddenly, the respondent appeared with a hatchet and inflicted a number of hatchet blows on him. On hearing his cries, his brother Jafar and his cousin Khadim Hussain were attracted to the spot. They rescued him and removed him to the hospital. The statement of the appellant was recorded in the hospital on 5-9-1980 and on the basis of his statement, a case was registered against the respondent.
3. The motive alleged by the prosecution was that 14/16 years earlier a cousin of the respondent No,1 was murdered and the complainant was tried in that case but he was acquitted. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case and convicted the respondent under section 307, P.P.C.
And sentenced him to R.I. For a period of five years and fine of Rs,5,000. The appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted by the learned High Court. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention of the appellant that the occurrence took place during daylight and there was no reason why Noor Ahmed who was seriously injured should have falsely attributed the attack on him to the respondent. It was a case of single accused and substitution was a rare phenomenon.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has worked out Rs,99,115 as full compensation.
Muhammad Anwar, respondent, was arrested on 5-9-1980. He was released on bail. He was convicted on 27-1-1982. He remained in custody for about two years and four months. Under the Jail Manual, he would also be entitled to certain remission, therefore, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, we reduce the amount of compensation to Rs,50,000. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in order to keep harmony between the parties, the appellant would be satisfied if the compensation, as settled by this Court, is paid to the appellant.
We also find that the respondent has remained in jail for more than two years and this appeal is against acquittal. We do not, in the circumstances of the case, consider that the respondent should be sent back to the prison though there is sufficient evidence against the respondent. The ends of justice would be met if the respondent Muhammad Anwar pays Rs,50,000 as compensation to the appellant Noor Ahmad.
5. We, therefore, allow this appeal, restore the conviction with undergone R.I. And enhance the fine of Rs,50,000 which shall be paid by the respondent Muhammad Anwar to Noor Ahmed, appellant, within one year. If the fine is not recovered, the respondent shall suffer further R.I. For two years. In case of less payment, the sentence shall be reduced in accordance with law.
6. The appeal is disposed of in the terms indicated above.