1992 PLP 2453 (MLD)

Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Addl. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 5th August, 1992. . JUSTICE ABDUL MAJID TIWANA (MEMBER)‑‑‑ This appeal under section 1.5 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1992 arises out of the judgment, dated 14‑7‑1992, by which the learned Judge of Special Court for Speedy Trial, Multan, convicting Islam‑ud‑Din appellant under section 193, P.P.C. for perjury, sentenced him to undergo six months' simple imprisonments and a fine of Rs.500 or in default of its payment t o further suffer 15 days' simple imprisonment.

2. The appellant was one of the prosecution witnesses in case; State v. Safdar and 8 others registered at Police Station Makhdoom Rashid, District Multan, under sections 324, 302, 148/149 and 120‑B, P.P.C. During its trial he had deposed about the criminal conspiracy amongst certain accused, despite having been warned by the learned trial Judge for obviously making a false statement.

3. On the conclusion of the trial in the case, he was issued notice for showing cause against his proposed prosecution for perjury. However, his trial was deferred till the decision of the appeal against the acquittal of the accused therein. On the rejection of the State appeal by this Court, the learned trial Judge commenced proceedings against the appellant. He charged him in the following terms:‑‑ "That in a case State v. Safdar and others you appeared as P.W.20 and gave a false evidence, in that case and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 193, P.P.C., which is within the cognizance of this Court."

4. In reply to the charge, he pleaded guilty in the following words:‑‑ "I plead guilty to the charge, but I was constrained by the police to make the false statement in this case and I gave false evidence in the case, namely, The State. v.. Safdar and others belonging to P.S. Makhdoom Rashid."

5. He declined to. say anything else in reply to general question as to whether he wanted to say anything else.

6. On the basis of his aforesaid confessional statement; the learned trial Judge, by the judgment now under challenge, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner aforesaid and aggrieved by it, he has come up in appeal to this Court.

7. With reference to the provisions of section 76 and section 94, P.P.C., initially the learned counsel for the appellant has tried to erode the vires of the impugned judgment but realizing his initially to achieve his object, he has ultimately come up with the request that in view of the frank confession of the guilt by his client, coupled with the fact of his poverty, illiteracy and his helplessness before the police pressure, his sentence may be reduced to the one already undergone by him.

8. Perjury is an offence which adversely affects the administration of justice and to discourage its commission the Courts ordinarily take a serious view. We too would have adopted this course but in the preculiar circumstances of this case, when the grievances of the complainant party in the main case, which had lost the lives of five persons, remained un-redressed due to acquittal of the accused, we would like to take a lenient view in the matter of the sentence of the appellant. Another factor which weighs with us for signifying leniency in his favour is his frankness in confessing his guilt and energy of the trial Court. In taking this view we find support from a well‑known `Maxim‑cum‑confessing willingly should be dealt with more leniently'.

9. For various reasons stated above, where the conviction of the appellant under section 193, P.P.C. is maintained his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by him, and his sentence of fine is reduced from Rs.500 to Rs.100 and the sentence in lieu thereof from 15 days' S.I. to 5 days' S.I. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. N:H.Q./67/S.A.C. Sentence reduced.