1989 PLP 4086 (MLD)

Muhammad Naeem for the State. Date of hearing: 24th July, 1989. The appellant, Maqsood Ahmad, was convicted by a Magistrate exercising enhanced powers under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Lahore of an offence under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000 in default of payment of the fine he was directed to receive further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. He has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence.

2. The appellant was married to Mst. Shahnaz (P.W.3) about four years prior to the occurrence. There were two issues of the marriage. About four months before the relevant date the appellant threw her out from his house and she started living with her parents. Later, she filed a suit for the dissolution of her marriage. The appellant felt extremely annoyed and threatened to kill her. On 10‑6‑1981 at about 12‑30 a.m. Mst. Shahnaz was sleeping in the courtyard of her parents' house. The appellant came there and woke up her mother. He then took out a Chhuri from the fold of his Shalwar and chopped off of a part of Mst. Shahnaz's nose. After that he ran away. A report of this incident was lodged at Police Station Ichhra at 3 a.m. on the same night.

3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code and denied that he was responsible for cutting off his wife's nose. He examined four witnesses in his defence.

4. The case against the appellant rested on the testimony of Mst. Shahnaz (P.W.3) her brothers Abdul Sattar (P.W.1) and Abdul Ghaffar (P.W.4) and her mother: At Khurshid (P.W.8). They all stated that they were present at the time of occurrence and had seen the appellant attacking Mst. Shahnaz with a Chhuri. They were all natural witnesses and they had no reason to let off the real culprit and instead falsely attribute the injury received by Mst. Shahnaz to the appellant. The witnesses produced by the appellant in his defence were either unconvincing or did not detract from the allegations made by the witnesses for the prosecution against the appellant.

5. In this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code. His case is that the parties have entered into a compromise and Mst. Shahnaz (P.W.3) has pardoned the appellant. In support of his claim an application, on behalf of Mst. Shahnaz has been produced before me. Mst. Shahnaz has also appeared in Court and has supported the contents of the application submitted by her.

6. Mst. Shahnaz is a very unfortunate girl. She has been permanently disfigured by her own husband. By allowing her husband to remain in jail she stands to suffer more, for, she has two small children who have to be maintained and looked after. Although I am averse to permitting the appellant to evade the consequences of his dastardly act I do not wish to prolong her agony. Accordingly, albeit reluctantly, I reduce his sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine is also set aside. M.Y.H./M‑1530/1 Appeal partly allowed: