ANWARL HAQ PANNUN, J.--- Consequent upon submission of challan in case F.I.R. No,136, dated 6- 7-2002 for offence under sections 324, 452, 334, 336, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Kot Sultan District Layyah, the petitioner was tried for committing house trespass and causing hurt by sprinkling acid on the bodies of Mst. Zarina Bibi and Zarina Bibi which resulted into Itlaf-i-Udw and Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-Udw of Mst. Zarina Bibi, and on the conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate Section 30, Layyah vide his judgment dated 26-9-2003 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:--- "(1) Under section 324, P.P.C.; the accused Nazar Hussain is convicted and sentenced to R.I. For three
(3) years along with Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) as Arsh;
(2) Under section 334, P.P.C.; the above named accused Nazar Hussain is convicted and sentenced to R.I. For three (3) years along with Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) as Arsh;
(3) Under section 336, P.P.C. The above named accused Nazar Hussain is convicted and sentenced to R.I. For six (6) years along with It.2,00,000 (two lacs) as Arsh;
(4) Under section 452, P.P.C.; the above named accused Nazar Hussain is convicted and sentenced to R.I. For a period of two (2) years and further he would be under obligation to pay Rs,5,000 as fine in default of payment of fine, he will further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
In aggregate, the accused Nazar Hussain is, therefore, convicted and sentenced for a period of 14 years. He is also liable to pay Rs,4,00,000 (four lacs) as Arsh.
All the above said sentence will run consecutively. However, the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Is also extended in favour of the accused Nazar Hussain.
The amount of Arsh i.e. Rs,4,00,000 (four lacs) will be given to the victim Mst. Zarina Bibi when realized/recovered from the accused Nazar Hussain."
2. The petitioner challenged his above referred conviction and sentence by filing criminal appeal under section 408, Cr.P.C. Simultaneously. One of the injured Mst. Zarina Bibi also filed criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the learned trial Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah vide his consolidated judgment, dated 9-3-2007 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and while accepted criminal revision petition of Mst. Zarina Bibi has enhanced the sentence as under:--- "(i) Three years punishment under section 324, P.P.C. Is enhanced to punishment of ten years;
(ii) Three years punishment under section 334, P.P.C. Is enhanced to punishment for ten years;
(iii) Six years punishment under section 336, P.P.C. Is enhanced to punishment for ten years.
Where the remaining portion of sentences and payment of Arsh awarded by the learned trial Court is maintained."
Hence this criminal revision by the petitioner assailing the judgment of the Courts below.
3. The petitioner through this petition, has challenged the legality and propriety of the afore- referred judgments only on legal premises.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts ' below have ignored the provision of section 71 of Pakistan Penal Code while passing the impugned judgments as the petitioner could not have been convicted and sentenced for all the offences which are made of one transaction. He has further argued that legally wrong conviction and sentences awarded by the Courts below requires the indulgence of this Court through exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
He has relied upon the cases of Abdul Majeed v. The State 1973 SCM R 108, Faiz Muhammad v. The State 1981 PCr.LJ 12, Ghulam Mustafa and another v. The State 1994 M LD 1400, Hafizuddin and 2 others v. The State and others 1969 PCr.LJ 610, Bashir Ahmad v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 1516, Mst. Zohra v. Jamal Din 1985 PCr.LJ 1581, Muhammad Munir v.
The State 1985 PCr.LJ 1239, Fazlul Haq v. The State PLD 1959 Dacca 931, Lashkar and 3 others v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 1034 and Ghulam Hussain and another v. The State 1969 PCr.LJ 151(2).
5. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. While supporting impugned judgment has prayed for dismissal of criminal revision petition.
6. In order to better appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the provisions of sections 324, 334, 336 and 71 P.P.C. Would be necessary. The same are read as under:- -- "71 Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences. ---Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more' than one of such offences, unless it be so expressly provided.
Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or Where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence, the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for anyone of such offences.
324 Attempt to commit Qatl-i-Amd.--- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that, if he by that act caused Qatl, he would be guilty of Qatl-iAmd, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, (but shall not be less than five years, if the offence has been committed in the name or on the pretext of honour) and shall also be liable to fine, and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall (in addition to the imprisonment and fine as aforesaid) be liable to the punishment provided for the hurt caused: Provided that, where the punishment for the hurt is Qisas which is not executable, the offender shall be liable to Arsh and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years.
334. Punishment for Itlaf-i-Udw.--- Whoever by doing any act, with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, causes Itlaf-i-Udw of any person, shall in consultation with the authorized Medical Officer, be punished with Qisas, and if the Qisas is not executable keeping in view the principles of equality in accordance with the Injunctions of Islam, the offender shall be liable to Arsh and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years as Ta'zir.
336. Punishment for Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-Udw .--- Whoever, by doing any act with the intention of causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person, causes Italf-i-Salahiyyat-i-Udw of any person, shall, in consultation with the authorized Medical Officer, be punished with Qisas and if the Qisas is not executable keeping in view the principles of equality in accordance with the Injunctions of Islam, the offender shall be liable to Arsh and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years as Tazir."
7. The perusal of the evidence available on record does not indicate that the petitioner has any intention to commit Qatl-i-Amd of injured Mst. Zarina Mai rather the intention on the part petitioner as it reflects on the record appears was to commit any of the offence under sections 334 and 336, P.P.C. The comparative study of both The sections of sections 334 and 336, P.P.C. Revealed that the punishment provided under both the provisions is one and the same. The effect of Itlaf-i-Udw can necessarily effect the Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-Udw. In section 71 of the Pakistan Penal Code a limit has been prescribed for imposing punishment upon an offender where the offence alleged against the accused is made out in parts and any of which part is itself an offence, the offender, in such circumstances cannot be punished for more than one of such offences unless it is so expressly provided under the law. The provisions of sections 334 and 336, P.P.C. No where authorize the Court as the Courts expressly have been empowered under section 324, P.P.C. To punish the offender for both of the offences which may constitute an offence under section 324, P.P.C. Parts. In a case in which the same accused commits an offence under two different statutes or the same Act constitute an offence falling within two or more definitions of law, the accused cannot be made to suffer separate sentences for each of the said sentences although he may be convicted for the same. The imposition of two separate sentences in such cases though they might have been made to run concurrently, is deemed to be illegal.
8. For what has been discussed hereinabove the sentences imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Courts below, separately under sections 324 and 334 are held to have been passed in violation of section 71 of the Pakistan Penal Code and, therefore, are set aside having been illegally imposed.