NUSRAT SHAH and 2 otherss vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge and Special Judge for STA, Larkana, which convicted the appellants under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 each. The core legal question concerned the appropriateness of the quantum of sentence, given that the complainant had turned hostile and the appellants had already been incarcerated for approximately six years. Upon review, the Court noted that while the conviction was maintained based on police testimony, the original sentence was excessive. Consequently, the Court held that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone. Furthermore, the Court reduced the fine to Rs. 10,000 each and ordered that the sentence for the separate offence under the Arms Ordinance run concurrently with the robbery sentence, as both crimes arose from the same transaction. The appeal was dismissed subject to these modifications in sentencing.
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone if the original sentence is deemed excessive?
- Should sentences for multiple offences arising from the same transaction be ordered to run concurrently?
- Does the hostility of a complainant necessarily invalidate a conviction supported by other evidence?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382(B), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
1. MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21st August, 2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge and Special Judge for STA. Larkana, in special Case No,394 of 1997 (new), Special Case No,90 of 1995(old), arising out of crime No,62 of 1995 of Police Station Haidri Larkana, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 392 r/w Section 34 P.P.0 and sentenced to suffer R.I. For 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs,50,000 each. In case of default in payment of fine, the appellants were to suffer S.-I. For six months more. They were however, granted benefit under section 382(B), Cr.P.C. Precisely, the prosecution story as unfolded in the complaint, lodged by complainant Ali Nawaz Brohi, on 4-10-1995, at 10.40 a.m., goes on to allege that the complainant used to ply the taxi owned by his brother. On the date of incident at about 10.15 a.m., three persons came and hired the taxi for proceeding to Naudero and boarded, disclosing their names as Nusrat Shah, Abdul Jabbar and Irshad Ali. When the car reached at Qaim Shah Road about 10.30 a.m., they stopped the car, by force pushed the complainant out of the car and drove the same towards Naudero Chowk. In the meanwhile SHO Nisar Ahmed Brohi alongwith his subordinate staff reached there in the police mobile and on the complaint of the complainant followed the culprits. Consequently, culprits were arrested by the SHO and the robbed car was recovered from their possession. The appellants were accordingly sent up to stand their trial. The appellants refused to admit their guilt, thus the trial commenced. The prosecution in order to prove their case examined as many as six witnesses including the complainant. On conclusion of the trial, the appellants were found guilty of the offence alleged and were convicted in the terms as stated above.
2. After arguing the case at some length, learned counsel submitted that the appellants would pray for leniency and reduction in the sentence instead of contesting the appeal on merits. It was urged that the appellants have remained in jail for a period of nearly six years. Learned State Counsel has conceded to the proposal and has no objection if the sentence awarded to the appellants is altered to already undergone. We have considered the submissions and have also examined the material available on record.
3. In this case the complainant has resiled from his earlier statement and was declared hostile.
4. However, the police witnesses attempted to prove the prosecution case. In any case, the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants seems to be little bit excessive. This is not sustainable in all fairness. Since the appellants have already undergone imprisonment for nearly six years it will meet ends of justice if the sentence is altered and reduced to that extent. The joint submission put forward by learned counsel for the appellants and learned State Counsel appears to be just and reasonable. In the circumstances, we would uphold the conviction but modify the sentence to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants. The amount of fine is also reduced to Rs,10,000 each instead of Rs,50,000 each. In case of non-payment of fine, the appellants shall have to suffer S.I. For one month more. As prayed by learned counsel for the appellants and duly conceded by the counsel for the State, we further direct that the sentence awarded to the appellants under section 13-D Arms Ordinance should run concurrently as the said crime was also committed during the same transaction. The appeal is dismissed subject, however, to above modification.