1986 PLP 2920 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AMIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2920 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2920 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2920 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2920 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AMIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Sarfraz Ahmad for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.307 & 34‑‑Conviction and sentence‑‑Grievous injury attributed to accused M‑‑Accused D and H attributed simple injuries‑‑Element of provocation apparently present‑‑Accused D and H. remaining in jail for about one year‑‑Sentence of imprisonment of four years' R.I. of these accused was reduced to already undergone and fine enhanced from Rs.2,000 to Rs.5,000‑‑Sentence of accused M responsible for causing grievous hurt, was reduced from 4 years' R.I. to 3 years'. R.I. plus fine of Rs.5,
000. Aziz Qureshi for A.‑G. Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Amin (18), Allah Ditta (27) and Ashiq Hussain (23) sons of Muhammad Sharif were tried by Ch. Abdul Majid, Judicial Magistrate, Sialkot and convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. They were sentenced to four years' R.I. each and a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to undergo six months' R.I. with‑ a direction that if the fine is realized, fifty per cent of the same shall be paid to Muhammad Ali, the injured P.W. as compensation. They filed an appeal which was dismissed by Rai Muhammad Zafor Bhatti, Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 16‑7‑1984 and their conviction and sentences were maintained. They have filed this revision.
2. The occurrence took place on 4‑7‑1982 at 5‑00 p. m. in Mohallah Maqsood Chan, Sialkot City. Two days before the occurrence there was an altercation between the womenfolk of the petitioners and the injured P.W. which led to the occurrence. The petitioners are alleged to have opened the attack on Muhammad Ali P.W.1 near a water reservoir and caused him injuries with their respective Chhuris. The injured was medically examined by Dr. Muhammad Aslam P.W.3, who found five injuries on his person out of which one was grievous and dangerous to life which is attributed to Muhammad Amin petitioner. The diamension of the said injury was as under:‑ "Incised wound 3/4" x 1/2" x 1 " deep, over the back of left chest outer aspect." The other injuries were simple in nature. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Ajmal (not produced). Muhammad Waris P.W.6 and Ejaz by Muhammad Ajmal (not produced), Muhammad Waris P.W.6 and Ejaz P.W.2. Ejaz P.W.2 reported the matter to the police by making statement Exh.P.A. in the hospital at 10 p.m. on the same night.
3. The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge and attributed the case to enmity. They examined Muhammad Bashir in defence who stated that an altercation had taken place between , the womenfolk of the parties on account of fixing a peg and that he did not see any of the petitioners there at that time.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there was no previous background of enmity between the parties and that Muhammad Ali, the injured P.W. had picked up an altercation with the womenfolk of the petitioners over throwing of water in the street. This plea was put to Muhammad Ali, the injured P.W. in cross‑examination but he denied the same and he was duly confronted with his police statement Exh.P.D. where it was so recorded. Learned counsel further contends that the motive set up by the prosecution that womenfolk of the parties had quarrelled with each other 2/4 days prior to the occurrence was false and was not even put to the petitioners in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. He submits that since the occurrence was the result of a sudden quarrel, the petitioners were entitled to leniency in the matter of sentence.
5. I have considered the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners of sentence. Grievous injury is attributed to Muhammad Amin petitioner only. He is said to be behind the bars since 8‑3‑1984. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners Muhammad Amin had remained in jail for about 14 months before he was released on bail by the trial Court. Allah Ditta and Ashiq Hussain petitioners after conviction remained in jail ‑till 6‑7‑1985 when their sentences were suspended by this Court. No grievous injury is attributed to them.
6. Since the element of provocation appears to be present. I therefore, accept the revision petition to the extent of reducing the sentence of Allah Ditta and Ashiq Hussain petitioners to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them and to pay a fine of Rs.500 (Rupees five hundred) each or in default to undergo three months' R.I. further. The sentence of Muhammad Amin petitioner is reduced from four years' to three years R.I. plus a fine of Rs.500 (Rupees five hundred only) or in default to undergo three months R.I. with benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Allah Ditta and Ashiq Hussain petitioners shall be discharged on the payment of fine in the Court of the learned trial Magistrate. The fine, if realized, shall be paid to Muhammad Ali, the injured P.W. as compensation. With the above modification in the sentence the revision is, otherwise, dismissed. S. A. Revision dismissed.