' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, J.--- Zafar Iqbal seeks leave to appeal from the judgment dated 10-6- 2009 of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby, criminal revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed and his conviction under section 336/34, P.P.C. Was upheld along with sentence to imprisonment for 7 years and payment of Arsh to the tune of Rs,500,000.
2. Zafar Iqbal, along with his co-accused Ghulam Hussain and Adnan is said to have had thrown acid on Mst. Sahib Bibi, wife of complainant Muhammad Iqbal, as a result of which, she sustained acid burns on her face, neck and left arm, covering 17 per cent of the body area.
3. The occurrence is sufficiently proved by the injured lady, who herself appeared in Court, carrying the marks of occurrence. Her statement is duly supported by the medico-legal report (P.86). Zafar Iqbal, petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Admitted the occurrence, but threw the burden on his co-accused Ghulam Hussain. This was done at a time when Ghulam Hussain had already died during the trial. Third accused, Adnan is, however, acquitted most probably, for the reason that overt act of throwing acid is not attributed to him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. And that the dress worn by the victim at the time of occurrence had not been produced. No doubt, the F.I.R.
Is delayed, but it has not been indicated as to what benefit the prosecution has derived by such delay. The clothes, even if produced, would have, at the most, proved the same thing which resultantly was given in the medico-legal report. It cannot be ruled out that due to damage to the clothes, the victim might have changed the dress, which she did. Her personal appearance with marks of occurrence on her body is sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of offence. The Courts below have rightly held him guilty.
5. Even disfigurement is sufficient to constitute offence under section 336, P.P.C. And hence the petitioner was rightly convicted there under. However, it is to be noticed that the principal sentence is that of Arsh and the Court can also award sentence of imprisonment to the extent of 10 years, in the given circumstances of each case. We have found that the facial disfigurement is only to the extent of five per cent, which might be a scar of small size, the compensation (Arsh) to the extent of Rs,500,000 and the sentence of 7 years over and above is a bit on the heavier side.:
6. Consequently, the petition after conversion into appeal is partially accepted to the extent of sentence alone. The petitioner is sentenced to the payment of Rs,300,000 as Arsh and an imprisonment of 5 years with benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The imprisonment in default will remain intact.