Hussain Khan was tried under section 307, P.P.C. By the Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha for having launched murderous assault on P.W. Abdul Ghafoor at 1-45 p.m. On 6-2-1987 at Chowk Khayyam Cinema, at a distance of 1 /2 mile from Police Station Cantt. Sargodha.
Learned trial Magistrate vide judgment, dated 21-12-1989 convicted him under section 307, P.P.C.
And sentenced him to undergo R.I. For 5 years, plus to pay a fine of Rs.1,000, in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For 6 months.
2. The convict has filed appeal.
3. The prosecution case, at the trial .Was that Hussain Khan appellant who had migrated from Pickia in Afghanistan, to Sargodha, had hired a room from the complainant and started living there, 3-4 years prior to the occurrence. A few days before the occurrence, he had asked the complainant for the hand of his daughter, on which the complainant had felt outraged. He told him that by having done so he had disgraced him, upon which both had exchanged abuses and quarrelled. They were separated by the residents of the area. Hussain Khan appellant had threatened the complainant that he will finish the whole family.
4. It is alleged that on the day of occurrence he had fired 4 shots from an automatic pistol, two of which had gone ineffective while two had passed through the trousers of the complainant.
5. Statements of four P.Ws. Were recorded at the trial. The ocular account was furnished by Abdul Ghafoor P.W.1 and Ashiq P.W.2. Apart from that, Muhammad Akram who had witnessed the taking into possession of trousers of the complainant and S.I. Fateh Khan who had investigated the case, had appeared as P.W.3 and P.W.4 respectively.
6. The appellant during his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Had denied the prosecution case.
He had taken up the stance that the complainant had obtained a sum of Rs.60,000 from him and that when he had demanded return of the same, he got him involved falsely in the case. He had not produced any evidence in defence.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 307, P.P.C. He has, however, submitted that the sentence awarded to the appellant was disproportionate and not in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Notwithstanding the fact that learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant, I have gone through the evidence and I am convinced that no interference is called for in the judgment of conviction, as the same stands based on the statements of independent witnesses. The conviction of the appellant under section 307, P.P.C. Is, therefore, maintained.
However, the sentence of 5 years' R.I. Awarded to the appellant appears to be excessive, in view of the admitted position that the complainant had escaped any hurt. I feel, the sentence of 2-1/2 years' R.I. Plus the fine awarded to him by the trial Court, will meet the ends of justice. Order accordingly. He shall also be given benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.