1984 P Cr (PLP)

S. Murtaza Ali Zaidi for the State. Date of hearing: 25th May, 1983. This criminal revision arises from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan whereby, he on 2-12-1982 dismissed the appeal filed by Sultan petitioner against his conviction under section 307, P.P.C. and sentence of 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof, 2 months' R.I. recorded and awarded by Magistrate Ist Class, Section 30, Multan. 2. The prosecution case is that on 1-6-1980 at 12-15 p.m. Maqbool Hussain injured, Ghulam Farid complainant and Muhammad Akram P.W. were watering the land of Maqbool Hussain injured P.W., when Sultan petitioner armed with .12 bore gun and Ghulam Muhammad with, hatchet reached there. Sultan petitioner asked them as to why they were watering the field wherein Maqbool told him that since they had taken the possession of the land through process of law, therefore, they have a right to irrigate the same. On this, Sultan, fired at Maqbool Hussain which hit on his thigh. This occurrence was also seen by Nabi Bakhsh P.W.S and Allah Wasaya P.W.6. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Out of whom Ghulam Farid P.W.2. Muhammad Akram P.W.4 and Nabi Bakhsh P.W.6 have supported the prosecution case and stated that Sultan petitioner had fired at Maqbool Hussain and thereby caused fire-arm injuries on his thigh. Maqbool Hussain P.W.3. has also stated that the injuries found on his person were inflicted by Sultan. Dr. Riaz-ud-Din P.W.1 medically examined Maqbool Hussain P.W. 3 and found 7 fire-arm wounds on his thigh. According to the doctor, the injuries were collectively dangerous to life. Abdul Ghafoor Girdawar P.W.7 and Abdul Qaddus P.W.8 have stated that they had delivered the possession of the disputed land to Ahmad Bakhsh, father of Maqbool Hussain P.W. The petitioner when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied all the incriminating circumstances and raised the plea of false implication on account of dispute over land and produced Khadim Hussain D.W.1 and Fazal Karim D.W.2 in defence. The defence witnesses have stated that the petitioner bears good moral character. Since there is ample evidence to connect the petitioner with the injuries found on the person of Maqbool Hussain, I, therefore, admitted the revision only on the question of sentence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the injury on the non-vital part of the body and petitioner did not fire second shot, therefore the sentence awarded to the petitioner is excessive one. The learned counsel for the State has however supported the sentence awarded to the petitioner. 5. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I, find that the petitioner fired one shot on the thigh of Maqbool Hussain P.W.3. He did not repeat the shot; the case was registered on 1-6-1980; he was convicted by the trial Court on 8-5-1982; his appeal was dismissed on 2-12-1982 and since then he is in jail. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the sentence of 3 years is really excessive one. Keeping in mind the agony of the trial coupled with the fact that the injury was inflicted on the non-vital part of the body, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of the petitioner from 3 years' R.I. to one year R.I. The fine of Rs.1,000 and the sentence in default therefore is, however, maintained. With this modification, the revision is dismissed. M. Y. H. Sentence reduced.