1992 PLP 549 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to the complainant to examine why the sentence, particularly of fine be not enhanced keeping in view the fact that the victim was school teacher and his nose was completely chopped off.

2. The facts of the case and the motive for the occurrence are both narrated in the judgment of the High Court and are reproduced hereunder:‑

"Farid Bakhsh P.W.5 was a School Teacher. He was employed in a school in Balochistan. He belonged to Mauza Hajipur within the limits of Police Station Dajal and had come on leave to his village. On 28‑1‑1972, at about 8‑30 p.m., he was on his way to his house from the fields. When he passed near the house of Ghulam Rasool appellant, all the appellants emerged out of the house and attacked and overpowered him. Saeed Ahmad appellant caught him by his neck and Ghulam Qadir appellant caught him by his head. Ghulam Haider appellant took a razor out and cut off his nose. The remaining appellants gave him stick blows. He raised an alarm which attracted Rahim Bakhsh and Ramzan P.Ws., who witnessed the occurrence and also rescued him from the appellants. Farid Bakhsh P.W. had an invalid brother. Ghulam Haider appellant was interested in marrying his daughter Mst. Ghulam Zainab. Farid Bakhsh P.W. would not, however, allow this marriage to take place and it was to remove him out of their way that the appellants joined together in causing injuries to Farid Bakhsh P.W."

3. The trial Court found the respondents guilty of the offence under section 326/149, P.P.C. and sentenced them to five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 each' and in default of payment of fine one year R.I. more. They were also convicted under section 148, P.P.C,, and sentenced to one year R.I. The sentences were to run concurrently.

4. The occurrence had taken place in 1972. The trial Court had decided the case in 1973. The first appeal against conviction and sentence came to be heard in 1987. The learned Judge observed as hereunder:‑

"So far as the remaining three appellants are concerned, I am in complete agreement with the learned trial Magistrate that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt." and concluded as hereunder:‑

"I would maintain the conviction of Ghulam Haider, Saeed Ahmad and Ghulam Qadir appellants. It is not clear from evidence how Saeed Ahmad and Ghulam Qadir are related to Ghulam Haider appellant and why they joined him in the commission of this offence. Be that as it may, the role played by Saeed Ahmad and Ghulam Qadir appellants in the commission of the offence was a lesser role. They remained in jail for about a month during the trial. After conviction, they spent two years, five months and 17 days in jail before they were released on bail. I would, therefore, reduce their sentence of imprisonment to one already undergone; their sentence of fine and imprisonment in default of the payment thereof is maintained. There is no extenuating circumstance so far as Ghulam Haider appellant is concerned. His appeal is dismissed.

5. Mr. Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal by particular reference to Ground (d) of the Memorandum of Appeal, as hereunder.‑

"The sentence already undergone by respondents No.l and 2 (about 2‑1/2 years) was hardly commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by them and the damage done to the petitioner. As a result of the offence committed by the respondents the nose of the petitioner was completely chopped off. The petitioner remained under medical treatment for over six months during which period he had to undergo seven serious surgical operations at Multan and Karachi besides suffering enormous material setbacks. At the time of the occurrence the petitioner was serving as a school teacher. The petitioner is now posted as Headmaster of Government High School, Hajipur, Tehsil Jampur, District Rajanpur. The petitioner as well as all the convicts belong to Hajipur. The position of a Headmaster in a locality is that of respect and honour. But, unfortunately the chopped nose of the petitioner is not only a source of constant embarrassment to the petitioner but also an ever‑visible testimony to the criminality and cruelty of the respondents perpetrated upon the petitioner."

6. The learned counsel representing the respondents has contended that they are poor persons and financially not in a position to discharge any greater burden than that already imposed by the Courts. It has further been contended that the prosecution case was not believed in its entirety for two persons who were allegedly armed with sticks and caused injury by blunt weapons and have been acquitted.

7. We find that no appeal has been filed against Ghulam Haider, the main assailant who cut the nose. This appeal is directed against the two, acquitted accused also but from the leave granting order it appears that enhancement in fine of only the convicted accused was to be examined and not the acquittal of the two respondents.

8. We also find that in awarding the fine and in compensating the victim the Courts have not kept in view the requirement and the amplitude of section 544‑A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The motive for the crime afforded no justification either in religion or in present set up for resorting to such an act of which the three accused have been found guilty. The cutting of, the nose is associated with disgrace and dishonour which in the case of the victim who is School Teacher and is said to be a Headmaster now abiding and public.

9. In the circumstances, we accept the appeal, set aside the amount of fine imposed by the Courts and enhance it to Rs.10,000 each in case of Saeed Ahmad and Ghulam Qadir respondents No.1 and 2, keeping the imprisonment in default to be same i.e. one year R.I. The entire amount of fine on recovery shall be paid as compensation to the victim. The two respondents are allowed a period of two months within which they are to pay the fine, failing which they shall be required to undergo the sentence awarded. The amount of fine being compensatory in nature shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue under section 544‑A of the Criminal Procedure Code, if its recovery otherwise is not secured. M.BA./F‑233/5. Appeal accepted.