P L D 1956 Sind 77 (PLP)

VELLANI, J.

‑The Crown has made this revision applica tion to enhance the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 6,000 or, rigorous imprisonment for six months in default, imposed by Muhammad Bachal, J. upon the respondent upon her conviction on the unanimous verdict of the Jury of abetment of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section 325 read with section 114 P. P. C. The conviction has not been questioned before us. The respondent who is the senior Begum of Junagadh, was tried for the murder of her maidservant Mst. Banco, aged about 13 years, an offence under section 302 P. P. C. At the trial, her maidservant Allah Rakhi the approver and another maidservant Haloo, gave evidence generally to the effect that Allah Rakhi had beaten the deceased Mst. Banoo with a small cane and a rope at the behest of the respondent who also participated in the beating, as a result of which Mst. Banoo died. Her body was buried clandestinely according to the prosecution and was exhumed a few days later in the presence of a Magistrate. The post‑mortem examination of the body disposed eleven contusions which in the opinion of the police surgeon Dr. Ataur Rahman were caused by a blunt weapon, the death in his opinion being due to shock as a result of the multiple injuries found upon her person. The unanimous verdict of the jury, finding the respondent guilty of the offence under section 325 read with section 114 P. P. C. and of no higher or other offence, indicates that all that the evidence proved was that the respondent abetted the infliction by the approver Allah Rakhi of the injuries upon Mst. Banco and no more, and that is a pivotal consideration in this case. There is no indication whether the jury accepted the story of the two maidservants that Allah Rakhi at the behest of the respondent, tied Mst. Banoo up with a chin or rope and that likewise at her behest approver Allah Rakhi put red ground chillies up her rectum. The police surgeon's evidence lends no corroboration to this story, for no marks, or foreign substance or inflammation were detected. In his order Bachal, J. adverted to the considerations which led him to impose the sentence. He observed that the res pondent had remained an under‑trial prisoner for over 121 months, that the offence of which she had been found guilty was bailable, that the weapon used was a stick and she herself had not beaten Banoo, and that Banoo was partly to blame for her having soiled the respondent's commode in the bath room and the carpet in her room, which had provoked the respondent's anger. He further said that the respondent had suffered in money, mind and reputation, that she would have been immune from the process of law before the partition, and that her impression that she was so immune had not been corrected till the decision of the Federal Court given after the incident. These grounds are indeed cogent, and the revision appli cation for enhancement of the sentence fails to look squarely at them. It has been conceded that the respondent had been charged with murder since her arrest and that all her bail applications were successfully resisted on the ground that she was charged with an offence punishable with death. The offence of which the respondent has been found guilty by the jury is a bailable offence and therefore the respondent has as a result of the prosecution not only suffered imprison ment (though as an under‑trial prisoner) for 121 months, but has also had the acute mental pain and anxiety involved in the capital charge. Moreover, the respondent has suffered gravely in reputation. In order to explain the finding of the chain in the maidservant's room on the first floor of the respondent's house, the approver Allah Rakhi and Haloo said apparently for the first time in the Sessions Court that it was used at nights to tie up the maidservants to the respondent's bed to prevent them from going out of the room and informing people that one Ubeid Mian was in the Begum's room. The suggestion was that Ubeid Mian used often to be in the respondent's room at night. The evidence of Dr. Anwar Ahmad was that Ubeid Mian was a son of a cousin of the respondent. No question has been raised before us as to the admissibility of this evidence and no comment is necessary as to its introduction. The fact remains that the respondent has thereby suffered grievous harm to reputation as to her moral character. The main argument for enhancement was the cruelty the respondent displayed in having Mst. Banoo beaten by approver Allah Rakhi so grievously when it was her duty to protect. Mst. Banoo, a girl of 13 in a weak state of health, who was her whole time maidservant living all the time with her and having no access to her parents. An element of cruelty undoubtedly exists in the case, but the question is whether in the context of this case under section 325 read with section 114 P. p. C. in which the cruelty of approver Allah Rakhi was undoubtedly to a degree a contributive factor in the infliction of the injuries found, the Court can say that the respondent has not been substan tially punished. In Crown v. Pario (10 S R 207), Partt, J. C. observed :‑ "Enhancement of sentence is a serious proceeding. This Court does not ordinarily interfere when substantial sentence has been passed by the trying Court and is always slow to interfere unless the sentence passed is manifestly inadequate " We think that the imprisonment of 121 months under gone by the respondent ‑before her trial, was rightly taken into consideration by the learned Judge when deciding what sentence to impose on her. The detention was substantial. In Crown v. Alimchand Bulchand Thadani (I L R (1945) Kar. 409, 419), Davis, C. J and O'Sullivan, J. declined to enhance a sentence which appeared to them substantial and not grossly inadequate. In the case of Emperor v. Budha (A I R (1919) Lah. 205), Broadway, J. said that the fact that he himself might have passed a heavier sentence was not of itself a sufficient reason to enhance the punishment inflicted. And in Hla San v. The King (A I R (1942) Rang. 49), Dunkley, J. considered that generally speaking a sentence ought not to be enhanced in revision unless it was such a manifestly inadequate punishment for the offence committed as to amount to a miscarriage of justice. Where discretion had been exercised perversely, or upon wrong principles as appeared in Gul Zaman Mir Zaman v. Emperor (A I R (1939) Pesh, 47), the High Court might in revision correct it. Having regard to the conviction under section 325 read with section 114 P. P. C. in the context of this case, we should indeed be slow to think that the imposition of the sentence of fine and imprisonment till the rising of the Court taken with the 1 months' imprisonment pending the case, the acute mental pain and anxiety of a capital charge for that period and the loss of reputation as to moral character which the respondent has suffered, are at all inadequate punishment or that the interests of justice require any enhancement of the sentence imposed. We accordingly decline to interfere and dismiss the application. Respondent's bail bonds discharged. A. H. Application dismissed.