' Having been convicted by a Magistrate 1st Class at Rabwah on 6-1-1991 for an offence punishable under Section 326, P.P.C., one Muhammad Akhtar was sentenced to three years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000 or nine months' Si. in default of payment of the said fine. The entire amount of fine was directed'to be paid to Mst. Zarina complainant, as compensation.
2. During the course of the hearing of the appeal filed by the said Muhammad Akhtar before the Court of Session, a learned A.SJ. at Chiniot issued a notice to the said appellant to show cause why the sentence imposed on him by the learned trial Court be not enhanced?
3. Through his judgment, dated 11-4-1991, the said learned A.SJ. dismissed the convict's appeal and after maintaining his conviction under section 326, P.P.C., enhanced the sentence of, imprisonment to a term of seven years' R.I. and also increased the amount of fine from Rs.10,000 to Rs.50,000 or sufferance of two years' R.I. in default of payment of fine. The entire amount of fine was directed to be paid to Mst. Zarina complainant, on realisation. The said Muhammad Akhtar convict then filed the present petition before this Court impugning the conviction and sentences recorded against him as abovenoticed.
4. The occurrence in question which led to the impugned punishment of the present petitioner, had been reported at Police Station Lalian by Mst. Zarina who was then the wife of the said Muhammad Akhtar convict.
5. While reporting the occurrence at the said police station on 17-6-1987, she had stated that she had been married to Akhtar convict about ten months prior to the said report; that a couple of months after the marriage, the relations between the two became strained which led to a persistent quarrel between her and her husband; that on 20-4-1987 her brother Alam Sher P.W. and her mother also came to her matrimonial house and in their presence, Akhtar convict again started quarreling with her; that in the meantime, the complainant's mother-in-law Mst. Azizan and her husband's brother Asghar also reached there; that Akhtar convict then stated that he must end this dispute for all times whereafter, Akhtar convict and his brother Asghar tied the complainant with the .cot which was lying in the room and they asked their mother Mst. Azizan to bring an electric rod who obliged and that thereafter Akhtar convict plugged down the said rod and injured the right hand and other parts of her body with the same.
6. The complainant had further alleged that the electric current damaged her right hand as a result of which, she fell unconscious and found herself in Lalian Hospital when she regained her consciousness.
7. She had further claimed that on the second day of her admission to the said hospital, her in-laws took her back to their house from where, she was taken to her parents' house and was left there.
She had further stated that her parents then got her admitted in PA.F. Hospital at Mianwali and all the five fingers of her right hand were amputated.
8. Explaining the delay in lodging the report, the complainant had added that her in-laws kept on beseaching her parents not to report the matter to the police but she had finally made up her mind to take the culprits to task and had thus brought the matter to the notice of the police.
9. Stating the reason for the occurrence in question, the complainant had disclosed that her husband Akhtar was not in favour of marrying her and it was on this account that he had assaulted her forcing her to terminate the marriage in question.
10. According to Dr. Muhammad Anwar Bokhari (P.W.3) who had examined Mst. Zarina P.W. on the day of occurrence i.e. on 20-4-1987, the complainant's right hand and right arm had been badly burnt on account of electric current; the fingers of the right hand had become black and that there was no sensation in the said fingers nor was any blood in circulation in the same. He had further stated that he had advised amputation of the said fingers but the relatives of the said victim were not agreeable to the same and took away the said patient on 21-4-1987.
11. The said doctor had further deposed that Mst. Zarina was in a state of semi-unconsciousness when she had been brought to the said hospital on the day of occurrence and that when he examined her again after about two months of the date of occurrence under the orders of a Magistrate, the fingers of her right hand had been amputated.
12. Mst. Zarina appeared at the trial as P.W.1 and was supported by her brother Alam Sher P.W.2.
13. It had been claimed by the eye-witnesses that Akhtar convict was not agreeable to marrying Mst. Zarina P.W. but had accepted this marriage on account of the insistence of his mother. They had further claimed that Mst. Zarina was illiterate and it was even on this account that Akhtar convict was always unhappy with her. It also came on record that a sister of Akhtar convict was the wife of Alam Sher P.W. who-was continuing to live with the said P.W. even after the occurrence.
14. The learned counsel for Akhtar convict submitted that the burning of Mst. Zarina P.W's. hand was in fact an accident and that the blame had been falsely put on him.
15. As has been noticed above, a sister of Akhtar convict is the wife of Mst. Zarina P.W's. brother. The said lady has not abandoned the complainant's brother and is still living with him. It is also in evidence that Mst. Zarina P.W. stayed on with her in-laws for quite a few days after the occurrence in question.
16. These circumstances are sufficient to demonstrate that the A complainant party had no motive or reason to maliciously and falsely convert an accident into an intentional assault by Akhtar convict on Mst. Zarina P.W. Nothing was even suggested to the eye-witnesses to demonstrate any illwill or animosity which could have led the complainant party to such a course of action.
17. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the ocular testimony offered by the two eye- witnesses, especially by Mst. Zarina complainant. The same is credible and inspires confidence.
18. It was perhaps for this reason and on account of a concurrent finding of guilt recorded by the two Courts below that the learned counsel, appearing in support of Akhtar convict, elected not to challenge the conviction recorded against him and instead prayed only that the enhanced sentences awarded to Akhtar convict were unjust and deserved to be reduced.
19. Akhtar convict had, on account of sheer callousness and on account of sheer disregard for, a human being who being his wife was at his mercy, assaulted the complainant. The loss thus caused had resulted in the amputation of all the five fingers of the victim's right hand and this conduct of the convict had even resulted in destruction of the victim's marriage with the convict.
Mst. Zarina complainant was twenty years of age, at the time of the trial. She is a young girl and the incapacity above mentioned caused to her would militate very strongly against her finding another match for marriage.
20. Akhtar convict thus does not deserve any leniency. Consequently, the sentence of seven years'
'R.I. awarded to him by the learned A.S.J. is maintained.
21. But it has come on record that the convict is not a man of substantial means. Resultantly, I find that a sum of Rs. 50,000 imposed on him, as fine, is rather harsh. The said amount is, therefore, reduced to a sum of Rs.10,000 in default of payment of which, the convict shall suffer one year R.I.
22. With the above modification, this petition is dismissed. But before I part with this judgment, I would like to point out that the provisions of section 439(4) of the Cr.P.C. prohibit this Court from entertaining any proceedings in revision with respect to a revisional order made by a Court of Session under section 439-A of the Cr.P.C.
23. In view of this provision of law, the present petition was not entertainable in its present form.
24. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that strictly following the above-noticed provision of law, a person aggrieved of a fresh order passed against him in exercise of the revisional powers of the Court of Session, would be left without a remedy, I have invoked my extraordinary powers conferred through section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. and have examined the matter, as above. This petition has, therefore, been treated by me not as one under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. but as one under section 561-A of the same Code.