Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: IRSHAD AHMAD VS Respondent: THE STATEGhulam Nabi Awan and Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf,Hafiz Ghulam Bari for the State.,S.M. Tayyab
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 2003
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
IRSHAD AHMAD and others‑‑Appellants
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Appeals Nos. 367, 10‑J and 466 of 1986, decided on 26th March, 1983.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 304‑‑Sentence‑‑Out of 16 injuries on person of deceased 15 found simple‑‑Rupture of stomach resulting in death‑‑Evidence properly appreciated by Trial Court‑‑Trend of order showing conviction under Part II of S.304, P.P.C.‑‑Nature of injuries not calling for maximum punishment‑‑Sentence of 10 years' R.I. reduced to 7 years' R.I. in circumstances.
Ghulam Nabi Awan and Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf for Appellants.
Hafiz Ghulam Bari for the State.
S.M. Tayyab for the Complainant.
Date of hearing: 26th March, 1988.
JUDGMENT
These three Criminal Appeals Nos. 367 of 1987, filed by Irshad Ahmad alias Bagga, No. 466 of 1986, filed by Ghulam Rasul, Ghulam Hussain alias Maula and No. 10‑J of 1987 of Muhammad Rafiq through Jail, arise from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad whereby he on 28‑5‑1986 while acquitting Bashir Ahmad, Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Gulzar of the charges, convicted Irshad Ahmad, Ghulam Rasul, Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Rafiq appellants under section 304/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 each and in default one year's R.I. each. I propose to dispose of three matters through single judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 367 of 1986 and 466 of 1986 have not challenged the conviction of the appellants and rightly so I find that there is ample reliable evidence to show that Abdul Manan deceased died as a result of injuries caused by the appellants. Out of 16 injuries found on his body. 15 were simple in nature and it was because of the rupture of stomach that he died. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated evidence and has rightly come to the conclusion that the offence committed by the appellants is punishable under section 304, P.P.C. The learned A trial Court has not specified the part of section 304, P.P.C. under which the appellants have been convicted. From the trend of order it appears that the appellants have probably been convicted under section 304, Part II, P.P.C.
3. This brings me to the question of sentence. I feel that in view of the nature of injuries caused by the appellants, the sentence of 10 years' R.I. (maximum sentence prescribed under Part II of section 304, P.P.C.) is excessive. The same is, therefore, reduced from 10 years to 7 years' R.I. The fine imposed upon them and imprisonment in lieu thereof are maintained. The three appeals are disposed of accordingly.
S.A. /I‑79/L Sentence reduced.