1989 PLP 755 (MLD)
REHMAT SHER alias AHMAD SHER‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 755 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | REHMAT SHER alias AHMAD SHER‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 755 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 755 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 755 (MLD) (REHMAT SHER alias AHMAD SHER‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- D.M. Awan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 1st March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 324‑‑Reduction in sentence‑‑Solitary injury suffered by complainant from accused was declared to be simple and complainant while appearing at trial had not made any grievance of incapacitation‑‑No previous enmity existed between the parties and only incident which happened prior to occurrence was that accused was once slapped by complainant on account of damage to his crop‑ Accused was never involved in any case previously‑‑Sentence of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to accused was considered excessive and reduced to one year maintaining sentence of fine. MA. Chaudhry for the State.
Judgment & Decree
D.M. Awan for Petitioner. MA. Chaudhry for the State. Date of hearing: 1st March, 1989. The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 29‑1‑1989 of Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23‑7‑1986 of Magistrate Section 30, Jauharabad, whereof learned Magistrate had convicted the petitioner under section 324, P.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years plus to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 in default whereof to suffer R.I. for six months. Out of the fine, on recovery a sum of Rs.3,000 was directed to be paid as compensation to the injured P.W.
2. The contention raised on merits by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of revision petition were not considered weighty. The revision petition was admitted only to consider the quantum of sentence because learned counsel had contended that the maximum sentence of imprisonment provided for section 324, P.P.C. has been awarded in this case in spite of the fact that the only injury on the injured P.W. was on non‑vital part and had been declared simple.
3. The solitary injury suffered by the complainant in this case was on the knee and the same was declared simple. The inured witness while appearing ai the trial had not made any grievance of incapacitation. `There was no previous longstanding enmity between the petitioner and the complainant. The only incident which had happened between the parties prior to this occurrence, was that the petitioner had been slapped once by the complainant on account Of damage to his crops. It does not appear from the record that the petitioner was ever involved in any case prior to the one in hand. The case is pending since February, 1985. In the circumstances, the sentence of 3 years' R.I. seems to be excessive. The same is reduced to R.I. for one year keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had remained in jail for about one and half months as undertrial also. The sentence of fine and the direction of payment of compensation, on recovery; from fine, is maintained. H.B.T./R‑130/LOrder accordingly.