1977 PLP 471 (SCMR)

Maqbool Ahmed Rana, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Nasim Hassan Sheikh. Advocate Supreme Court (absent) for Respondents Nos. 1‑

4. Nemo for Respondent No.

5. Riaz Ahmed Sheikh Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab for Respondent No.

6. Date of hearing : 14th February 1977. MUHAUMAD HALEEM, J.‑Respondents Nos. 1‑5 were tried by the Resi dent Magistrate, Okara, exercising Powers under Section 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code for being armed with deadly weapons and for the attempted murder of the appellant who found them guilty on both the counts. On the first count they were sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and on the second to one year's rigorous imprisonment by judgment dated 31-5‑1969. These respondents appealed and the appellant moved an application for the enhancement of their sentence. A leaned Single Judge in the Lahore High Court while dismissing the appeal enhanced the sentence of respondents Nos. 1 to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. The sentence of imprisonment of the other respondents was not enhanced but a fiat of Rs. 2,000 was imposed on each of them or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 months. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the question as to whether the learned Single Judge bad failed to comply with sections 544‑A and 545, Cr. P. C. in not awarding compensation to the appellant out of the fine imposed 'in view of the grievous physical and mental sufferings' caused to the appellant. The implication of section 544‑A, Cr, P, C. teas considered in State v. Rab Nawaz (PLD1974SC87) and it was held that this provision is 'mandatory and casts a clear duty on the Court to award compensation unless for reasons to be recorded, it otherwise directs'. The reason is not far to seek for its object is to alleviate the suffering of the injured person and also to be an effective deterrent against violent crime. It was further emphasized that the amount of compensation though recoverable as fine, is not fine. In Mst. Razia Begum v: Hijrayat Ali and others (PLD1976SC44) this Court while imposing fine ordered that if recovered the same shall be paid to the hairs of the deceased, as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr. P. C. This course was adopted because the trial Court had unfortunately failed to notice this aspect of the case and the fine was imposed 'to make up for the omission of the trial Court' as this provision is not only statutory but mandatory in it, requirement. These observations apply with full force to the case under consideration. The learned Single Judge while imposing the fine had omitted to consider this provision and thus failed to discharge the statutory duty imposed by it. Nevertheless, under section 545 (i) (b), Cr. P. C. the fine can be directed to be paid any person as compensation for the injuries suffered by him. Having regard to the injuries caused to the appellant as a result of which he lost his sight and speech and is now disabled, we order that out of the fine of Rs. 13000, if recovered, Rs. 10,000 shall be paid to him. The appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. Appeal allowed.