' Vide F.I.R. No, 237, dated 16-11-2001 Police Station Pezu, it was reported by the present petitioner Mst.
Pasham Jana that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have injured her by firing effectivity at her with their .12 bore DB shotguns with the intention to kill her in furtherance of their common intention. The accused faced trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat and vide judgment, dated 13-10-2003, the learned trial Judge concluded in these words:-- "The prosecution has proved its case against the accused facing trial to the effect that both the accused armed with DB .12 bore shotguns and in furtherance . Of their common intention have attempted to commit Qatl-i-Amd of complainant Mst. Pasham Jana by firing at her with their respective weapons, as a result of which, complainant sustained injuries on her right leg. This is also supported by the medical evidence. Hence, both the accused are convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C. And each of the accused is sentenced to undergo one year and three months' RI and also to pay fine of Rs,100 and in default of payment of fine, each of the accused shall further suffer one day's S.I. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is extended to the accused."
' This order has been challenged by the complainant alone through the present criminal revision petition under section 439, Cr.P.C. For the enhancement of sentence passed against the convict- respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned trial Court has held the respondents guilty of the offence of attempt to commit the offence of Qatl-iAmd but still lenient view was taken and a lesser punishment of imprisonment and fine was imposed and the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the accused/respondents whereas the clear provisions of the law required that in such cases, the penalty should be heavier and, in addition to the extended period of imprisonment, the Court was also bound to have granted monetary compensation by way of Daman against the convict/ respondents to be paid to the injured complainant. It was also argued that the complainant had successfully proved through evidence on the file that she had remained in hospital for a considerable long period and she had already annexed the medical prescriptions etc. To disclose the expenditure incurred on the treatment. It was also stated that the complainant was in a semi-paralysed form because of the injury on the leg but still she has not been compensated by the Court and the penalty amount of Rs,100 has also been imposed as fine and no amount of Daman was fixed.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that practically the respondents have already suffered the imprisonment as per the impugned judgment and they have been released from the prison on the expiry of their tenure of imprisonment and any enhancement at this stage would amount to double jeopardy. He also argued that practically the complainant had failed to prove the expenditure as well as permanent effect of the injury on her person because she had been in the hospital for a very short time and any document relating to her treatment elsewhere was not available on the file, therefore, the learned counsel supported the final verdict of the learned trial Court.
4. The perusal of the record and more particularly the operative portion of the impugned judgment would indicate that the respondents have committed a grave offence of firing shots at the complainant lady injuring her on the leg. It has been generally held by the Courts that once a person presses the trigger, he displays his intention to cause worst type of injuries including murder of the victim at the target and if by chance he suffers a minor type of injury, that does not mitigate the penalty to be imposed. In this particular case, woman was injured by the use of firearm. This is unprecedented in the culture of the area where the honour of the ladies is more protected because they do not indulge in public affairs, therefore, normally they are always respected even by hardened criminals. The act of the accused/ respondents Nos.1 and 2 is, therefore, unpardonable and deserves to be handled strongly. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, they have already undergone the entire period of imprisonment and they did not file an appeal against their conviction, therefore, any enhancement of the period of imprisonment shall not be fair at this juncture. However, it may be noted that the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance is a special type of legislation with a particular purpose in view that on the commission of an offence, the victim should be compensated either through Qisas by satisfaction of the vendetta or by Diyat, Arsh or Daman. The victim has to be compensated in any case. The amount of Diyat and Arsh in prescribed in the law but Daman is normally considered to be the discretion of the Court payable to the victim or his legal heirs in the offences where Diyat and Arsh is not payable. So, these are two portions of the powers to be exercised by the trial Court, the one with regard to the imprisonment and the other with regard to the imposition of Daman. The word 'shall' is used with the portion of compensation and the word 'may' is used with the portion relating to the period of imprisonment.
The learned trial Court has imposed the punishment of imprisonment as well as fine which is not an amount of compensation. However, the amount of Daman was obligatory to be fixed by the Court recoverable from the convict/accused and payable to the victim. The obligatory part was ignored by the learned trial Court which is an illegality and on this score, the judgment has to be modified.
5. In view of the above discussion, the criminal revision petition is partially accepted and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court with the direction to determine the amount of Daman keeping in view the expenditure incurred by the complainant on her treatment as well as the permanent nature of injury. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 15-3-2005.