1991 P Cr (PLP)

Shabbir Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner. M. Iqbal for the State. Date 4f hearing: 5th May, 1991. The facts leading to the filing of this criminal revision are that petitioner Ghulam Mustafa was tried by Resident Magistrate, Shorkot, for offence under section 324/325, P.P.C. The trial Court vide its judgment, dated 6-11-1982 convicted and sentenced him to 1-1/2 years' R.I. under section 325, P.P.C. He appealed, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang on 5-6-1983. However, the sentence of 1-1/2 years' R.I. was reduced to nine months' R.I.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is not proved at all. Submitted that the conviction under section 325, P.P.C. was bad in law because the Radiologist was not produced to prove that one of the injuries was grievous. Argued that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment, therefore, the conviction under section 325, P.P.C. could not be maintained. Lastly, it was contended that the sentence of imprisonment of nine months was too severe, instead some fine may be imposed and the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence: Dr. Syed Firdous Shah, Medical Officer, P.W.4 stated that he had given a certificate on the basis of X-Ray report that the injury was grievous. The report was exhibited as Exh. P.D. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel that the Radiologist was not produced loses its significance. After going through the entire evidence, I do not find any substance in the argument that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment, therefore, the conviction could not be recorded under section 325, P.P.C. As far as the last contention is concerned, it requires consideration. Notice to the petitioner was issued to show cause why the sentence of fine be not imposed, which was duly accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel contended that keeping the facts of the case in mind, the sentence of Rs.10,000 would adequately meet the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the State also conceded to the proposition. After going through the evidence, it is held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond any doubt against the petitioner. As far as the sentence is concerned, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, he is also sentenced to a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default one year's R.I. He shall pay the fine within one month. The fine, if paid, one-half of it shall be paid to the injured Mst. Jannat, wife of Allah Ditta. The criminal revision is dismissed in these terms. S.A./G-445/L Order accordingly.