2007 PLP 444 (YLR)
HAQ NAWAZ — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 444 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Salim Khan, J |
| Parties | HAQ NAWAZ — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 444 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 444 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Salim Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 444 (YLR) (HAQ NAWAZ — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Khalid Mahmood for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 2006.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 324
Sentence, reduction in
Prosecution witnesses had clearly stated that accused had fired at complainant
No conflict existed between oral and medical evidence
Identification of accused at the time of occurrence was not doubtful
Co- accused who was acquitted of the charge in the case, as he was not charged in F.I.R. for any effective firing
Such fact would not make case against accused doubtful in any manner
Trial Court in circumstances, had rightly convicted accused, but punishment of three years awarded to accused was excessive in circumstances of the case which was reduced to one year with fine of Rs.10,000, with facility that benefit under S.382-B. Cr.P. C. was given to the accused. Waliullah Khokar and Khalid Rehman Qureshi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALIM KHAN, J.
Fiaz Khan complainant charged Nawaz alias Haq Nawaz appellant for effectively firing at him vide F.I.R. No.28 dated 18-1-2005 of Police Station Kotnajibullah of District Haripur. It was alleged that the complainant along with his uncle Munsif Khan son of Dost Muhammad was near the village Qabristan at about 8-30 p.m. when Nawaz son of Noor Rehmat and another person came there and started the altercation with the complainant, on which the uncle of the complainant tried to restrain him, but the accused fired on the complainant with his .30 bore pistol with which he was hit. The appellant was tried along with his brother Naimat Khan in Sessions case No.36/7 of 2005 under section 324/34, P.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 27-6-2006 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Haripur, Naimat Khan was acquitted while the present appellant was convicted under section 324, P.P.C. and was sentenced to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default of payment of fine to undergo three months' S.I. Nothing was mentioned in the judgment about the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. to the appellant.
2. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned State counsel argued the case.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the case was triable by a Magistrate. The learned State counsel and the learned counsel for the complainant referred to the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. as well as to the Schedule of Cr.P.C. and contended that the punishment was 10 years while a Magistrate empowered under Section 30 Cr.P.C. had powers to sentence up to 7 years and the Court of Session had jurisdiction to try the case. The contention of the learned State counsel in this respect is correct.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Munsif Khan P.W.7 had not charged the appellant for firing at him, although it was mentioned in the F.I.R. by Fiaz Khan P.W.6 that the accused fired at them and P.W.7 also stated the same. But this contradiction was not taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. The statements of Fiaz Khan and Munsif Khan are clear to the effect that the appellant fired at Fiaz Khan P.W.6/complainant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the victim had not appeared before the Medical Board which made the injury caused to him doubtful. The medical officer clearly stated that fire-arm injury was caused to the victim and that injury was not self-inflicted. The recovery memos. Exh. P. W.5/1 regarding two empties from the scene of occurrence, Exh.P.W.9/3 regarding the presence of human blood on the Banyan of the victim, and Exh.P.W.1/4 regarding the recovery of the blood-stained Banyan, with cut mark, of the victim fully support the prosecution case. There is no conflict between the oral and medical evidence. The identification of the accused-appellant at the time of occurrence is not doubtful and P.W.6 has clearly mentioned that the appellant fired at him from a close distance. This fact was supported by Munsif Khan P.W.7 also Niamat Khan co-accused of the present appellant was acquitted of the charge in the same case, but he was not charged in the F.I.R. and for any effective firing. This fact does not make the case against the appellant doubtful in any manner.
6. The learned trial Court has come to the correct conclusion regarding conviction of the accused-appellant, but the punishment granted to the accused-appellant is excessive in the circumstances of the case. A punishment of imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.10,000 is sufficient in the circumstances of the case. I, therefore, reduce the period of imprisonment from 3 years to one year, but the remaining punishment as awarded shall remain intact, with the facility that benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is hereby given to the accused/appellant. The appellant is available in Court on bail. He may be taken into custody for undergoing the unexpired period of his punishment of imprisonment.
7. This appeal is disposed of in the above circumstances. H.B.T./192/P Sentence reduced.