1989 PLP 4061 (MLD)

‑‑‑S. 366‑‑Reduction in sentence‑‑Accused were convicted by Trial Court in 1978 to undergo 2 years' R.I. each and had undergone more than half of the sentence‑ Revision was pending since 1980‑‑Sentence of imprisonment already undergone by accused was held sufficient to meet the ends of justice in circumstances. Ch. Ghulam Rasul Warraich for Petitioners. Syed Ali Raza for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1989. Petitioners Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan were tried by Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha, for an offence under section 366, P.P.C. The learned trial Court vide its judgment, dated 29‑11‑1978 found them guilty and sentenced each of them ,to R.I. for two years. The convicts challenged their convictions and sentences. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide his judgment, dated 28‑1‑1980 dismissed the appeal and maintained the convictions. In the present revision the petitioners challenge the judgments of the Courts below.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the only independent witness, namely, Abdul Khaliq, did not support the prosecution version, therefore, the sentences were bad in law. Submits that the petitioners have undergone one year and 2 months of imprisonment which would be sufficient in the circumstances of the case because the occurrence took place in the year 1976 and the revision was filed in the year 1980, which could not be decided till 1989. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.

3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the file. Mst. Kaniz, the prosecutrix in the case, appeared as a witness and gave a detailed account of the occurrence. She had fully implicated both the petitioners. There is nothing on the record to suggest that she is not a truthful witness or should not be relied upon. She was a young girl who had made the statement, and I fail to understand why a young girl would stake her reputation to falsely involve the petitioners. In cross examination, she had not been suggested anything to that effect. I have gone through her statement and hold that it inspires confidence. In these circumstances, I hold that even the uncorroborated statement of the prosecutrix is enough to prove the case against the petitioners. As far as the other contention that the petitioners have undergone one year and two months of imprisonment and they may not be sent behind the bars to serve the remaining portions of their sentences has some force. The petitioners were convicted by the trial Court in 1978 and the revision is pending since 1980. The conviction was of two years. In these circumstances, the petitioners have already undergone more than half of the sentences awarded to them. Therefore, I feel in the circumstances of the case, the sentences of imprisonment already undergone would sufficiently meet the ends of justice. With this reduction in the sentence of imprisonment the revision is dismissed. N.H.Q./S‑532/L Revision dismissed.