2007 PLP 51 (MLD)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

The petitioner was tried for launching a murderous assault upon one Jaghday and for causing a fire-arm injury to him and vide judgment, dated 4-12-2004 he was convicted by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Okara for an offence under section 324, P.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner was also convicted by the learned trial Court for an offence under section 337F(v), P.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000 to the injured victim as Arsh. Both the sentences of imprisonment passed against the petitioner were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him. The petitioner challenged his convictions and sentences before the Court of Session, Okara through an appeal but his appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara vide judgment, dated 11-5-2005. Hence, the present revision petition before this Court.

2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a noticeable delay; the complainant had not entered the witness-box before the learned trial Court; the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt; and, therefore, the learned trial Court was not justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner and the learned appellate Court was not justified in dismissing his appeal.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the documents appended with this petition it has been noticed by me that the petitioner had specifically been nominated in the F.I.R. as the sole perpetrator of the alleged offence. According to the prosecution the petitioner had caused a fire-arm injury below the right knee of Jaghday P.W. The said injured victim had appeared before the learned trial Court and had categorically pointed his accusing finger towards the petitioner. The said injured victim was corroborated before the learned trial Court by an eye-witness and recovery of a fire-arm from the petitioner and the said injured victim had also found support from the medical evidence. After assessing and evaluating the evidence available on the record both the learned Courts below had concurred in their conclusions that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for the petitioner has remained unable to point out any particular or specific misreading or non-reading of the evidence on the part of the learned Courts below. Apart from that no jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure of perversity of reasoning on the part of the learned Courts below has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner so as to warrant an interference in the matter by this Court through exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The sentences passed by the learned trial Court against the petitioner have not been found by me to be either excessive or oppressive. In these circumstances no occasion has been found by me for interfering in the matter and this revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2005.

4. As the main revision petition has been dismissed by this Court in limine today, therefore, the present miscellaneous petition seeking interim relief has lost its relevance. Dismissed. H.B.T./M-561/L Revision dismissed.