Liaqat Ali appellant was convicted by Magistrate Section 30, Okara vide judgment, dated 10-1-1990 and sentenced as under:-- (i)Under section 307, P.P.C. 7 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default thereof one year's S.I.
(ii)Under section 326, P.P.C. 7 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default thereof one year's S.I.
(i.e)Under section 354, P.P.C. Two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default thereof three months'
S.I.
He was also ordered to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To Mst. Sughran Bibi, the injured P.W.
The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The convict has appealed.
2. Mst. Sughran Bibi (P.W.2) in injured condition reached Dr. Shahid Farooq (P.W.3), Tehsil Headquarters Hospital, Depalpur on 15-4-1989 at 3-00 p.m. He sent Ruqqa (Exh. P.C.) to the police station wherefrom Muhammad Ali' S.I./S.H.O., Police Station City Depalpur (P,W.6) reached the hospital and there recorded the statement of Mst. Bashiran Bibi (P.W.4), the mother of Mst. Sughran Bibi at 6-05 p.m. (Exh.P.E.). It was sent to the police station where formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.E./1) was registered at 6-20 p.m. By Muhammad Alamgir, A.S.I.
3. According to the version in the F.I.R. Mst. Bashiran alongwith his daughter Mst. Sughran Bibi who was employed in Health Centre Dharma, were residing in a rented house. On the day of occurrence they reached back at 1/1-30 p.m. After obtaining medicines from D.H.O. Office, Okara. After some time Mst. Rani daughter of Amin Jat came to their house and as usual called Mst. Sughran and both left for her (Rani's) house. After about 15/20 minutes the alarm of Mst. Sughran was heard upon which Mst. Bashiran complainant and her son Muhammad Abbas (given up P.W.) reached the street. They saw Liaqat appellant son of Amin Jat holding Mst. Sughran from her pig tail and throwing acid upon her head. When the complainant and Abbas tried to go near, they were threatened to keep away. The alarm of Mst. Sughran also attracted Mst. Iqbal Bibi (P.W.1) and Mst.
Shehnaz (given up P.W.) and other residents of the place. The appellant made good his escape. It is also in the F.I:R. That Mst. Sughran was severely burnt and her clothes also fell down on being burnt.
The motive alleged was that the appellant wanted to establish illicit connection with Mst. Sughran and also demanded her hand and upon refusal had injured her.
4. At the close of the trial the appellant stated that Mst. Sughran wanted to marry him, her brother was not agreeable to it, so the brother threw acid upon her and falsely involved him in the case. He also made statement on oath (D.W.1) and produced the copy of a complaint filed by Mst. Sughran against her brother Abbas and one Bashir Ahmad under section 323/341, P.P.C. (Exh.D.2) the power of attorney given by her in that case (Exh. D.1) and the list of witnesses (Exh.D.3).
5. The prosecution produced Mst. Sughran Bibi (P.W.2), her mother Mst. Bashiran complainant (P.W.4) and Mst. Iqbal Bibi (P.W.1) to give the ocular account of the occurrence. Dr. Shahid Farooq (P.W.3) provided the medical evidence and Muhammad Ali, S.I. (P.W.6), the investigator to prove the charge against the accused
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that actually Abbas, the brother of Mst. Sughran Bibi, son of Mst. Bashiran complainant had thrown acid upon her and he was falsely involved. In this connection he relied upon documents (Exhs.D.1, D.2 and D.3). Mst. Sughran Bibi (P.W.2) admitted her signatures upon these documents but she was not cross-examined at all that she had filed the complaint through her counsel nor the contents of the complaint (Exh.D.2) were put to her.
However, according to the version given in (Exh.D.2) Mst. Sughran was aged 24 years, she had been divorced by her husband on 8-6-1987, she wanted to marry the appellant of her own free will, none had abducted her and committed Zina with her, her brother Abbas alongwith Bashir Ahmad wanted to sell her to somebody else for money to which she was not agreeable and so four days before the lodging of the complaint (it purports to have been lodged on 8-3-1989), she had been given kicks and fist blows by Abbas and Bashir. Even if the contents of the complaint are considered as admissible evidence, yet it is to be seen whether the version given by the P.Ws. Is correct. Mst. Sughran Bibi was severely burnt and she alongwith her mother Mst. Bashiran have clearly implicated the appellant. According to them, the occurrence took place in the street in broad daylight. Even Mst. Iqbal Bibi (P.W.1) who turned hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecutor, stated that she heard the alarm at the spot of Mst. Bashiran, Mst. Sughran and Abbas and on reaching the spot found Mst. Sughran standing burnt with acid but she did not see anybody throwing acid upon her nor the appellant running away. Mst. Sughran was soon taken to the hospital and there the statement of the complainant was recorded by the S.H.O. Very promptly. I don't think that any time was utilized to cook up a false case. From the cross-examination to Mst.
Sughran and Mst. Bashiran it appears that perhaps they are not ladies of character above reproach and that perhaps gives a clue to the appellant's having felt offended about the conduct of Mst. Sughran leading to the unfortunate occurrence, in which he threw acid upon her. The two ladies tried to set up the case that her hand was desired by the appellant, which was refused by the mother. It was also suggested to Mst. Sughran that she had been implicated previously in a case under section 294, P.P.C. And was convicted and fined Rs.200. Mst. Bashiran was suggested and she denied the suggestion that her daughter Mst. Sughran had entered the house of the appellant (when she was thrown acid upon). Muhammad Ali S.I. (P.W.6) admitted that Mst. Rani was declared innocent and many persons had been examined by him about the occurrence. In his statement on oath the appellant deposed that Abbas had thrown acid upon Mst. Sughran and when he (the appellant) tried to save her, he was also thrown acid upon. He denied the suggestion that in the struggle the acid also fell upon him as well as Abbas. He volunteered that he himself had taken Abbas to the hospital. There is nothing on record nor any suggestion to the P.Ws. That Abbas was also having acid burns or he was got medically examined. The doctor has proved the minor acid burns upon the appellant and this shows his presence in the actual occurrence. Mst.
Sughran is a young lady. She was sprinkled acid in the street and if she resisted somewhat and the appellant while throwing the acid himself received some acid burns the situation is well understandable. I, therefore, agree with the appreciation of evidence made by the learned Magistrate.
7. The Magistrate, however, committed two glaring illegalities in the matter of sentence. Under clause (a) of proviso to subsection (2) of section 35 of Cr.P.C. The sentences when ordered to run consecutively could not be for a longer period than 14 years. The learned Magistrate sentenced the appellant to three terms of imprisonment the aggregate of which comes to 16 years. Under section 71 of the Penal Code the appellant could have been punished for only one charge i.e. Either under section 307 or 326, P.P.C. But not for both. The intention of the appellant was not to attempt murder of Mst. Sughran but to cause grievous injuries. Hence his conviction under both heads is bad at law.
His conviction only under section 326, P.P.C. Can be maintained. Furthermore, there is no evidence nor any allegation that the modesty of Mst. Sughran was tried to be outraged. The conviction under section 354, P.P.C. Also cannot be legally maintained.
8. The upshot is that the conviction and the sentence of the appellant under sections 307 and 354, P.P.C. Is hereby set aside. His appeal in this respect is accepted. His conviction under section 326, P.P.C. And the sentence thereunder as well as the compensation of Rs.10,000 under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Are maintained. The compensation amount would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. The same as well as the fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Mst. Sughran as compensation.