The appellant was tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Sargodha for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under section 457, P.P.C. As also for an offence punishable under section 18 of Ordinance VII of 1979 on the allegation that on the night between 28th/29th of November, 1988, he had trespassed into the house of Wali Muhammad (P.W.3) after scaling over the wall of his house, whereafter he allegedly entered the room and were up Mst. Ismat Khatoon (P.W.2) who is a daughter of Wali Muhammad complainant, for the purposes of commission of Zina with her. The said Mst. Ismat Khatoon, however, raised an alarm whereupon, the P.Ws. Reached the spot and the appellant managed to slip away from the place of occurrence.
2. Through his judgment, dated 22-1-1990, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the charge under section 457, P.P.C. And sentenced him to two years' R.I. With a fine of Rs.2,000 or sufferance of three months' R.I. In default of payment of fine. He was also convicted under section 511, P.P.C. And was sentenced to one year's R.I. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also allowed to him.
3. The appellant challenges his above-noted convictions and sentences through the present appeal.
4. The appellant's conviction recorded under section 511, P.P.C. Appears to be bad in law. The said section 511, P.P.C. Does not constitute an independent offence but only makes an attempt for the commission of a particular offence as punishable. The impugned judgment does not indicate the offence, the commission of which the appellant had been found to have attempted. He has been independently convicted under section 457, P.P.C. And obviously could not have been convicted and sentenced for an attempt to commit the same offence. The only other plausible explanation of his conviction under section 511, P.P.C. Could be his conviction for an attempt to commit Zina but no evidence at all exists on record which could prove any such attempt.
5. Consequently, the appellant's conviction recorded under section 511, P.P.C. And the sentence of one year's R.I. Awarded therefor is set aside.
6. In view of the statements of P.W.2 and P.W.4, the learned counsel for the appellant elected not to contest the conviction recorded against the appellant on the charge under section 457, P.P.C. And instead prayed that the sentences awarded to the appellant on the said charge be reduced.
7. From the record it transpires that the appellant had already suffered three months' imprisonment after his conviction by the learned trial Court. It is also apparent from the record that Wali Muhammad complainant had forgiven the appellant for the excesses committed by him. The appellant is a young boy and the offence committed by him appears to be a mere act of delinquency for which, he has already suffered enough punishment. He is facing the agony of trial for about three years which had also exposed him to shame in the eyes of his fellow villagers, besides having undergone three months' R.I.
8. Consequently, while maintaining the appellant's conviction under section 457, P.P.C. I reduce the sentence of two years' R.I. Awarded to him to a term of imprisonment already suffered by him. He is a labourer and in view of his financial position, the sentence of fine of Rs.2,000 is also reduced to an amount of Rs.1,000. He is allowed one month's time to pay this fine, failing which, he shall be taken into custody to undergo imprisonment directed in default of payment of fine and in case, the fine is paid as directed, then he shall stand discharged of the bail/surety bonds.
9. This appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.