Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHERA AND OTHERS VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 1118
[Lahore]
Before Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J
SHERA and others--Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE--Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 270 of 1976, decided on 18th November, 1987.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
---S. 379/149--Agony of protracted trial--Theft committed by cutting maize crop of complainant--Accused suffering agony of trial for 11 years--Parties having compromised matter--Conviction found based on correct appreciation of evidence--Sentence reduced to one already undergone in circumstances.
Muhammad Farooq Qureshi for Petitioners.
S.D. Qureshi for the State.
Date of hearing: 18th November, 1987.
JUDGMENT
The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 8-3-1976 of Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order, dated 24-2-1976 of M.I.C., Jauharabad, whereby learned Magistrate had convicted the petitioners under section 379/149, P.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for 12 years each.
2. Prosecution case is that the petitioners had committed theft of maiz crop of the complainant by cutting and removing the same from his land. The prosecution in all had examined five witnesses at the trial to prove the charge against the petitioners.
3. The petitioners during their statements under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. Except some documents produced in defence by Ata Muhammad petitioner, no other petitioner produced any evidence in defence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submitted that he would not press the petition on merits. Learned counsel stated that the occurrence in this case had taken place in November 1974 and the petitioners faced the agony of trial till February 1976. They were convicted by the trial Magistrate and had, thereafter suffered 1 months imprisonment each before they were released on bail after suspension of sentence by this Court vide order, dated 7-4-1976. Learned counsel states that in the circumstances, the sentence already undergone will meet the ends of justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioners added that he has instructions to state that the parties have compromised and so it may be treated as an additional factor for mitigation.
Notwithstanding the fact that learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the petition on merits, I have gone through the evidence, the impugned judgments and have come to the conclusion that the judgment of conviction is based upon correct appreciation of evidence. The conviction of the petitioners under section 379/149, P. P.C. , therefore, is maintained.
However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners had faced the agony of trial for more than two years and have remained under suspense for 11 years since after conviction, and have also entered into compromise with the complainant, I feel inclined to grant the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone. Order accordingly.
The revision petition stands disposed of.
S.A./S-205/L Sentence reduced.