Al Wakeelo logo

Al Wakeelo

Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty

Initializing Secure Chambers

1991 PCRLJ 1048

MUHAMMAD BOOTA And Another vs THE STATE

Petitioner: MUHAMMAD BOOTA And Another VS Respondent: THE STATE

Court: Lahore High Court Decision Date: 1991-02-18

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Raja Afrasiab Khan Title: MUHAMMAD BOOTA And Another vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Revision No.743 of 1978 Date of Judgment:1991-02-18 Reported As: 1991 P Cr. L J 1048 Result: Sentence reduce

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT Petitioners Muhammad Boota son of Bhudha and Muhammad Iqbal son of Chiragh Din were convicted and sentenced under section 325/34, P.P.C. To three years' R.I. Plus a fine of Rs.500 or in default to suffer three months' S.I. By the learned Magistrate Section 30, Sialkot on 10-9-1977. A joint appeal was moved by the convicts, which was heard and dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 7-10-1978. The petitioners/convicts remained in jail before and after conviction for 21 days. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the parties have entered into compromise and that they have decided to live amicably in the village. It is further stated that the complainant Mst. Sakiha injured had died about two years ago. Piran Ditta son of Jalal Din is present in person. He has been identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner as husband of the deceased complainant. Piran Ditta also verifies the fact of death of his were Mst. Sakina Bibi. He further states that he has been adequately compensated by the petitioners/convicts. Learned counsel does not challenge the conviction of the petitioners and requests that a lenient view may be taken about the quantum of sentence. This prayer has not been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate- General and the learned State counsel. Respectfully following Pir Bux v. State 1985 SCMR 2068 the conviction of the petitioners is maintained and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in view of the compromise arrived at by the parties. With this modification in the sentence, there is no substance in the revision petition, which is dismissed.

Related Legal Research & Directories