' This quashment petition has been filed by the petitioner vide which she has challenged the validity/legality of the impugned order of the Sessions Judge, Karak, Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, recorded on 10-2-1999 in Criminal Revision No,23 of 1998 (Mst. Kholgai v. The Madar Khan).
2. Briefly stated. The facts of the case are that respondent No,1, Madar Khan. Was charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 324. P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No, 115 registered at Police. Station, Takht-e-Nasrati, Tehsil and District Karak recorded on 14-6-1997.
3. After the completion of the investigation, the contesting respondent/ accused was put on trial.
The Trial Court at the conclusion of the trial found the respondent guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo 14 (fourteen) months' imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default thereof to undergo further S21. For two months. A direction was issued that if the fine is realised, half of it shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., was, however, extended to the respondent.
4. Not satisfied with the verdict of the trial Court; the complainant/petitioner filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Karak which was dismissed on 10-2-1999 on the following grounds:- ' Firstly, that the occurrence ',took place at the spur of the moment and was the result of an altercation between the womenfolk of both the (sic) washing clothes, ' Secondly, that the respondent had no intention to kill the petitioner/ complainant and it was because of this that he had stabbed her only once, and ' Thirdly, that the respondent after having been sentenced has served/undergone the requisite punishment of imprisonment for 14 months and has also paid the fine of Rs,5.000 and that thereafter he has left for an unknown destination.
5. Resultantly this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., for the quashment of the order of the Sessions Judge.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner heard at length. He has totally failed to convince me that both the lower Courts have either misread or non-read the evidence produced before it. On the contrary, a close scrutiny of the impugned judgments would show that both the Courts have appreciated/assessed the prosecution evidence properly and after having discussed the same at length have given valid reasons for its conclusion.
7. I am, therefore, of the considered view that both the forums below have not committed any illegality or material irregularity and that the judgments are not at all arbitrary/perverse.
Accordingly I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments.
8. This petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.. Is without any substance and is dismissed in limine.
However; it may be observed that the remaining amount of fine amounting to Rs,2,500 shall also be paid to the petitioner/complainant as compensation.