Respondent Maqsood Ahmed was tried by the learned Add]: Sessions Judge Vehari, in case F.I.R No. 424/2008, dated 1.7.2008 offence under Sections 376/511/451, PPC registered at Police Station Sadar Vehari and vide judgment dated 01.07.2009 he was convicted as under:--
(i) U/S 376/511, PPC read with Section 452, PPC and sentenced to two years R.I. with fine of Rs.
10,000/- under Sections 376/511 and 452, PPC each and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for two months.
It was ordered that both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the convict.
2. Brief facts of the case arc that on the night between 24/05.06.2008 Maqsood respondent entered into the house of the complainant by scaling over the wall, broke string of shalwar of Mst. Sajjda Bibi, wife of the complainant and also torn her dress. Or raising alarm of Mst. Sajida Bibi, PWs reached and on seeing them, the accused armed with pistol fled away with his companion from the place of occurrence. After due trial, the accused/respondent was, convicted and sentenced as mentioned supra. He preferred an appeal before this Court against his conviction and sentence.
3. During hearing Criminal Appeal No. 492-2009 titled "Maqsood Ahmed vs. The State etc", this Court admitted said appeal side order dated 31.7.2009 which is reproduced as under:-- "1. Appeal against conviction.
2. Admit. Notice. Record.
3. After perusal of the judgment, it is found necessary to issue notice to the appellant as though he has been convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511, PPC and Section 452, PPC but only has been sentenced, to two years imprisonment while the sentence provided under Section 376, PPC is death or imprisonment for life. In such circumstances, the sentence awarded to the appellant dOes not commensurate with the nature of the offence and the sentence provided under the law.
4. Let a notice be issued to the appellant who shall be placed as respondent after preparing separate file by the office.
Keeping in view the revisional power why the sentence awarded, to him may not be enhanced.
Both Criminal Appeal and the Revision shall be heard together."
Hence, this revision petition (Suo Moto).
4. Learned DPG argued that judgment passed by learned trial Court is illegal and contrary to law as minimum sentence provided for Section 376, PPC is not less than ten years whereas in this case the accused just attempted therefore, half of the provided sentence must be awarded.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is a night occurrence and no source of light has been mentioned, so identification of the respondent/accused is doubtful. The main contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the respondent had already served out his entire period of sentence and has been released from jail and prayed for dismisial of this revision petition.
6. Heard, record perused.
7. It has been informed by learned counsel for the respondent that in Criminal Appeal No. 492/2009 appellant/respondent after serving out his entire period of sentences have since been released and in such circumstances revision for enhancement has become. infructuous. Reliance has been placed on the case reported as "Amir. Khan & others vs. The State and others" (2002 SCM R 403) wherein it was observed asunder: "----S. 302/34--Accused after serving out their entire period of sentences had since been released and the appeal filed by them was not pressed--Appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence of 14he accused, in circumstances, had become infructuous as they could not be convicted again for the same offence--Appeals mere thus disposed of as having become infructuous ".
8. In this view of the matter, I feel no need to proceed further with this revision petition. This being so, Suo-Moto notice issued to respondent for enhancement of his sentence is dropped in the circumstances of the case in hand and revision petition is disposed of accordingly.