PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 261
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present:
Ali Zia Bajwa, J.
NASRULLAH
alias Pehlwan--Petitioner
versus
STATE
and another--Respondents
Crl.
Rev. No. 112960 of 2017, decided on 18.5.2023.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----S. 324--Facts and circumstances--No minimum sentence of
imprisonment for offence under Section 324, PPC, no has been provided in
statute, except in cases where offence is committed in name of honour, which is
not case here, High Court is of considered view that to meet ends of safe administration
of criminal justice, sentence of imprisonment awarded to petitioner should be
reduced to that already undergone by him. [Para
9] C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 435/439--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-F(iii)--Criminal
revision--Conviction and sentence--Modification in sentence--The petitioner
regrets over his criminal act and promises not to repeat same in future--He
requests that he is sole breadwinner of his family
and his sentences may kindly be reduced--Deputy Prosecutor General and counsel
for complainant also do not object if sentence of petitioner is reduced to that
already undergone by him--So far as, sentence of fine as well as effect of its
non payment as ordained by Courts below u/S. 324, PPC is concerned, fine
imposed upon petitioner is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-, and in
case of default in making payment thereof, he shall a undergo S.I. for
15-days--The petitioner shall pay modified amount of fine within one month and
in case of failure to do needful, law shall take its own course--As mentioned
above, amount of Daman as imposed under Section 337-F(iii), PPC has already
been paid by petitioner--Office shall transmit a copy of judgment to trial
Court for further proceedings. [Para
5 & 10] B & D
Duty of Court--
----Reduction in sentence--It is duty of Court to examine
available record carefully to rule out possibility of unfairness and injustice
to be caused to petitioner--It is a settled law by now that High Court while
exercising its a revisional jurisdiction should restrict itself to correctness,
legality, regularity or propriety of proceedings of courts below rather than
embarking upon a thorough reappraisal of evidence available on record, which is
exclusive domain of appellate Court. [Para
5] A
PLD 2019 SC 261.
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Dhoon, Advocate for Petitioner.
Sheikh Nouman, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Mr. Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 18.5.2023.
Judgment
Nasrullah alias Pehlwan son Of Muhammad Khan, caste Khimta,
resident of Sandanwala, Tehsil Piplan. District Mianwali (hereinafter
‘the petitioner’), being involved in case FIR
No. 156/2013, dated 29.09.2013, offences under Sections 324 &
337-F(iii), PPC, registered with Police Station Harnoli, District Mianwali was
tried by the Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Piplan, District Mianwali, who
vide judgment dated 27.07.2017 convicted and sentenced him in the following
terms:--
Ř
Under Section 324, PPC, sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 50,000/- , and
in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for
three months.
Ř
Under Section 337-F (iii), PPC,
sentenced to pay Daman of Rs. 50,000/- to injured and in case of default, to
further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
Ř
The sentences of imprisonment awarded to the
petitioner were directed to run concurrently and benefit of Section 382-B,
Cr.P.C. was also extended in his favour.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, whereas
the complainant filed revision petition for enhancement of sentences of the
petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, whereas the revision
petition filed by the complainant was partially allowed in terms that the sentence
of daman amount awarded by the trial
Court was enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-, to be paid in two
installments. However, the sentence of simple imprisonment for one month
awarded to the petitioner in case of default in payment of daman amount, was set-aside by the appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 14.11.2017.
3. Today, at the very outset, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he does not oppose conviction of the petitioner,
however, prays for reduction in his sentence. He further submits that the
petitioner has already paid the amount of daman inflicted upon him by the trial
Court in pursuance of order dated 09.03.2018 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc.
No.01 of 2017. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the
complainant do not controvert the prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner does not
challenge conviction of the petitioner and prays for reduction in his sentence
of imprisonment, but it is duty of the Court to examine the available record
carefully to rule out the possibility of unfairness and injustice to be caused
to the petitioner. It is a settled law by now that High Court while exercising
its a revisional jurisdiction should restrict itself to the correctness,
legality, regularity or propriety of the proceedings of the courts below rather
than embarking upon a thorough reappraisal of evidence available on the record,
which is exclusive domain of the appellate Court. [1]
6. It has been observed by this Court that both the Courts
below minutely scrutinized and examined the evidence available on the record
with regard to ocular account fully corroborated by the medical evidence in its
true perspective and arrived at the findings qua the guilt of the
petitioner and declared that prosecution was successful in proving its case to
hilt against him. Learned
counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality, irregularity or
impropriety in the proceedings of the Courts below.
7. The petitioner regrets over his criminal act and promises
not to repeat the same in future. He requests that he is the sole breadwinner
of his family and his sentences may kindly be reduced. Learned Deputy
Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the complainant also do not object
if sentence of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him.
8. The report submitted by the Superintendent, District Jail,
Bhakkar through Letter No. 6364, dated 17.05.2023 reflects that the petitioner
has already served out a substantive period of one year, seven months and
twenty six days out of his total sentence. The report does not reflect that the
petitioner was involved in any untoward activity during his confinement in
jail, recorded in his history ticket as envisaged in Rule 66 of the Pakistan
Prisons Rules, 1978, meaning thereby that his conduct in jail remained
satisfactory and there is every possibility of his reformation. The main
purpose of criminal justice system is to reform a wrongdoer. The petitioner
also has not committed any offence after conviction in this case.
9. Keeping in view all the afore-stated facts and
circumstances, as no minimum sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section
324, PPC, has been provided in the statute, except in cases where offence is
committed in the name of honour, which is not the case here, this Court is of
the considered view that to meet the ends of safe administration of criminal
justice, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner should be
reduced to that already undergone by him.
10. So far as, the sentence of fine as well as effect of its
non payment as ordained by the Courts below under Section 324, PPC is
concerned, fine imposed upon the petitioner is reduced from
Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- , and in case of default in making payment
thereof, he shall undergo S.I. for 15-days. The petitioner shall pay the
modified amount of fine within one month and in case of failure to do the
needful, law shall take its own course. As mentioned above, the amount of Daman
as imposed under Section 337-F(iii), PPC has already been paid by the
petitioner. Office shall transmit a copy of the judgment to the trial Court for
further proceedings.
11. With the reduction and modification in sentence of the
petitioner under Section 324, PPC as discussed above, the instant revision
petition stands dismissed.
The petitioner is on bail, therefore, on payment of fine, his surety shall be
discharged of the liability.
(A.A.K.) Petition dismissed