MOHD HAFEEZ Vs. INZAR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant Revision Petition, the petitioner (complainant first informant) has impugned the judgment/order of learned Sessions Judge, Poonch dated 1/2 of August, 2005, primarily with regard to the acquittal earned by all respondents 1 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as accused) of the main charge of Sections 302 and 307 RPC. They instead stand convicted and sentenced for lesser offences. To make it more clear, the conviction and the sentence recorded by the trial Court qua each accused is reproduced as under: Inzar Ahmed 304 Part -II RPC 5 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,000 as fine; in default, simple imprisonment for one month. 4/27 Arms Act 2 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500 fine; In default, simple imprisonment for 15 days. 148 RPC 3 years rigorous imprisonment. 447 RPC 2 months rigorous imprisonment. 324 read with 149 RPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Mohd. Azam 326 read with 149 RPC 3 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,000 as fine; in default, simple imprisonment for one month. 324 RPC 1 year Rigorous imprisonment. 447 RPC 3 month rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court has not imposed any separate sentence on him under Section 148 RPC. Mohd. Bashir, Mst. Fatima Bi and Mst. Havela Khatoon 326/149 RPC 21/2 years rigorous imprisonment to each and Rs. 1,000/ - fine to each; In default one months simple imprisonment to each. 324/149 RPC One year rigorous imprisonment to each. 447 RPC 3 months rigorous imprisonment to each. Mst. Shamim Akhtar 326/149 4 months rigorous imprisonment. 324/149 RPC 4 months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 10,000/ - fine; In default, two months simple imprisonment. 447 RPC 4 months rigorous imprisonment. No sentence under Section 147 RPC is imposed separately.

(2.) IT is worth mentioning here that as the total period of detention of accused Mst. Shamim Akhtar as an under -trial prisoner was four months only, therefore, keeping in view the fact that she was of the age of 22 years and having two milk sucking children, she was let off with the sentence already undergone by her. During trial also, she was on bail considering that she had to delivery the child.

(3.) ADMITTED position is that none of the accused has preferred appeal against their conviction and sentence, as before the pronouncement of the judgment, the sentence slapped upon them was already served by them as under -trial prisoners. Another admitted position is that State has also not preferred an appeal against the acquittal earned by the accused for the charge of 302/307 RPC or even on the point of sentence.