Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAFIQ And Another VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Munir Khan Title: MUHAMMAD RAFIQ And Another vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Revision No.681 of 1988 Date of Judgment:1991-03-27 Reported As: 1991 P Cr. L J 1562 Result: sentence altered
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Saeed petitioners were tried under section 325/452, P.P.C. On the charge of criminal trespass into the house of Muhammad Akram and causing injuries with bricks to Mst. Rehmat Bibi P.W.4 and also for having slapped the were of the complainant. On the conclusion of the trial, they were convicted under section 452/325, P.P.C. And sentenced to one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof two months' R.I. Each on each count. The appeal filed by them was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 12-12-1988, hence this revision. 2. While accepting the criminal liability of the petitioners for the injuries found on the person of injured P.W. And of having trespassed into the house of the complainant, the learned counsel has challenged the nature of crime on the ground that since the Radiologist was not examined and the petitioners while entering the house were empty handed, therefore, no case punishable under section 452/325, P.P.C. Was/is made out against them. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the learned Appellate Court. 3. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that since the petitioners were empty handed wh6n they entered into the house of the complainant, therefore, the main ingredient of section 452, P.P.C 'after having made preparation to cause hurt" is missing anti their conviction under section 452, P.P.C. Is quite illegal. Furthermore, the Radiologist was not examined to connect the X-Ray report with the injured P.Ws. And as such, the conviction under section 325/452. P.P.C. Of the petitioners is set aside, instead they are convicted under section 123/448, P.P.C.
---
## Page 2
4. This brings me to the question of sentence. The occurrence took place in the year, 1986. The petitioners were sent to jail thrice. After the rejection of their appeal, they remained in jail for more than two weeks before they could be released on bail in the revision. The maximum punishment provided under section 448, P.P.C. Is one year and under section 323, P.P.C. Is one year's R.I. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, I feel that agony of protracted trial coupled with the imprisonment already suffered by them as under trial prisoner/convict, would meet the case. Order accordingly.