1992 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 18th May, 1991. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 29‑5‑1984 through which the appellant was convicted by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Lahore Cantt., for an offence under section 459, P.P.C. and was sentenced to 5 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default in payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo 6 months' R.I. The prosecution case against the appellant, as reflected in F.I.R. Exh.P.W.2/A got recorded at the instance of Mst. Farzana (P.W.3), was that A on 12th of July, 1983 at 2‑00 a.m. the complainant found the appellant in the store‑room with a light on, searching the box lying therein. It was further mentioned that on seeing the complainant, the appellant pointed his revolver on her and warned her to be quiet. However, the complainant held the accused/appellant from his Greban and raised hue and cry. In the meantime her husband Bashir Ahmad Qamar (P.W.), who was sleeping in the nearby room, came to rescue her. The appellant fired with his revolver which hit him on the chest and head. The appellant was apprehended with the help of other witnesses namely Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Khan and Ayyub who happened to come over there due to commotion. Bashir Ahmad Qamar (P.W.) was medically examined by Dr. Khalid Anwar who found 4 injuries on his person. Two of the injuries were with fire arm weapon while the remaining two were of blunt weapon. The injured was advised X‑Ray. However, the prosecution did not take any step further and resultantly, the doctor could not opine about the nature of the injuries. The appellant was also examined by Dr. Muhammad Farooq Akmal who found 17 injuries of blunt weapon on his person. He, too was advised X‑Ray of his skull as well as other parts of his body. In his case too the nature of injuries could not be determined because of the failure to provide the desired X‑Ray results as directed by the doctor. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses in support of its case. The ocular account in this case has been stated by Muhammad Siddique (P.W.1), Mst. Farzana (P.W.3) and Bashir Ahmad Qamar (P.W.4). When the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. he stated that Mst. Farzana (P.W.3) used to call him often at her place. Even on the day of occurrence he was called and her husband Bashir Ahmad Qamar (P.W.) alongwith other witnesses overpowered him and subjected him to maltreatment resulting in injuries to him. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out certain infirmities in the statements of the witnesses during the course of arguments. He has stated that the injuries on the person of appellant were suppressed by the prosecution and were not satisfactorily explained. He has also criticised the recovery of revolver from the appellant. He has further pointed out that the appellant had already undergone more than one year of the substantive part of 8 his sentence apart from the period of 7 years which he had undergone as an under‑trial prisoner. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant. In the facts of this case I am not persuaded to give any credence to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, in the circumstances of this case C and keeping in view the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be fully met if the appellant's sentence is altered to the period already undergone by him. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with the modification in the period of sentence as aforestated. S.A./F‑5/L Order accordingly.