BEERBAL alias BEERO vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, Beerbal alias Beero, concerning the recovery of a weapon from an open field. The core legal question involves the determination of an appropriate sentence where the appellant does not press the appeal on merits and seeks leniency based on the duration of incarceration already undergone and precedents cited. The court, upon reviewing the record and noting that the appellant had already served a substantial period of imprisonment totaling approximately three years, five months, and twenty-one days, adopted a lenient view. The court held that the sentence of the appellant should be reduced to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may exercise discretion to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone in light of mitigating circumstances and the length of detention suffered by the accused.
- Whether an appellate court can reduce a criminal sentence to the period already undergone based on mitigating circumstances?
- Can an appeal against conviction be disposed of on a request for leniency when not pressed on merits?
ORDER
1. ' ZIA PERWAZ, J.---Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the case pertains to recovery of K.K. From an open field. The accused Beerbal would be subject to appropriate punishment in cases where he absconded and they are to be disposed of on their own merits. The F.I.R. In the present case of recovery does not show that the weapon was being used for commission of any offence at the time of recovery and it is a mere case of recovery as such learned counsel does not press this appeal on merits but requests for leniency in the sentence.
2. Reliance is also placed on the case of Abdul Karim v. State 1999 PCr.LJ 186 and Asghar v. State 2004 PCr.LJ 2048.
3. ' Learned State counsel after going through the record does not object to the disposal of this appeal in the above terms.
4. ' We have carefully gone through the record. Appellant was arrested on 15-7-2000. He was granted bail on 12-6-2001 while he was released from jail on 6-8-2002. The appellant was convicted on 18- 3-2004 and since then he is in custody. The appellant has remained in jail for about 3 years, 5 months and 21 days. Accordingly, taking lenient view the sentence of the appellant is reduced to that of already undergone. The appellant is allowed to be released from jail if not required in any custody case. With this modification the appeal is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.