P L D 1952 Azad J (PLP)

Mumtaz Muhammad, for Petitioner. Muhammad Sharif, Advocate‑General, for Government. ORDER. Jalal Khan, son of Noor Ahmad resident of Kharak, Tehsil Mirpur, was convicted by the Sub‑Judge. Magistrate 1st Class, Mirpur for offences under section 326, 324 and 323 A. P. C. and was sentenced as follows :‑ For the offence under section 326 A. P. C. he was sentenc ed to 3 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.

300. For the remaining two offences under sections 324 and 323 A. P. C. he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and one month respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused appealed to the Sessions Judge who maintained the conviction but ordered that the sentences under the various offences should run con secutively and not concurrently. An application for enhance ment of the sentence was also made to the Sessions Judge but was rejected by him. The convict applied to this Court on the revision side and his application was rejected. The case came up before a single judge who was of opinion that the sentence was inadequate. He accordingly directed the accused to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced and sent the case for orders to the Division Bench. The material facts in so far as they relevant to the question before us are as follows :‑ The accused had a wife living when he married Iqbal Begum. At the time of this marriage he entered into an agreement with his new wife that he would not henceforth live with his first wife, and in case he did so, Iqbal Begum would have the option to obtain a divorce. It is alleged that after about a month the accused brought back his first wife and began to live with her. Iqbal Begum thereupon left the accused's house to live with her father. After some time she brought a suit for dissolution of marriage against the accused and obtained an ex parte decree against him. She instituted another suit for the recovery of her dower which was also decreed. The accused also made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree and proceedings were pending before the Sub‑Judge, Mirpur when on 7th January, 1951 finding Iqbal Begum washing clothes on a stream the accused caught hold of her, beat her mercilessly with a hockey stick and then cut her nose with a knife. Iqbal Begum put up a stiff resis tance and as a result she received many injuries. A report of the occurrence was immediately made at the Police Station Mirpur, where all the details were disclosed. Counsel for the accused has urged that the accused has undergone major part of the sentence and it would not be proper to enhance the sentence at this stage. He has further urged that the order of the learned Sessions Judge has already resulted in enhancing the sentence which is now substantial. We agree that the learned Sessions judge's order that the sentences should run consecutively and not concurrently amounted to an enhancement. The learned Sessions judge was not however competent to pass such an order and we are setting aside the same on another ground also. All the injuries were caused to the girl in one beating and the offence com mitted was only one. The trial Magistrate and the learned Sessions judge have held the accused to be guilty of three offences viz : simple hurt, hurts by means of an instrument for cutting and grevious hurt by dangerous weapons. This is against the provisions of section 71 A. P. C. Several injuries were caused to the girl during the course of the whole beating. The accused cannot be held guilty of different offences for the various below given by him. He is liable only to one punish ment for the whole beating and could be punished only for an offence under section 326 A. P. C. His conviction for offences under sections 323 and 324 A. P. C. being illegal is quashed. As regards the sentence under section 326 A. P. C. we are of opinion that it is manifestly inadequate. It is not in public interest to treat such offenders so lightly. Beating the wife mercilessly and then cutting her nose in the way the accused did, constitute as agravated a case as could occur. The fact that the wife had instituted suits for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dower could hardly be considered to have given any provocation to the accused. In any case the pro vocation was neither sudden nor grave and the accused did not raise any such plea in his defence. The fact that the accused has undergone major part of the sentence is no obstruction to the sentence being enhanced. Under the circumstances we consider that a substantial sentence should be imposed in the case. We accordingly enhance the sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine will remain in tact. ABDUL MAJID, C. J.‑I agree.