FAYYAZ AHMAD vs STATE
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Fayyaz Ahmad, for offences under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial before a Magistrate Section-30, Gujranwala. The appellant was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine for the offence under Section 392, and one year for the offence under Section 411, with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. An appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. In the High Court, the appellant did not challenge the conviction itself but sought a reduction in the sentence, citing a compromise with the complainant and the fact that he had already served a significant portion of his sentence. The Court, noting the absence of a previous criminal history and the compromise between the parties, exercised its discretion to take a lenient view. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and ordered the immediate release of the appellant, provided he was not required in any other case.
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence based on a compromise between the parties even if the conviction is not challenged?
- Does the lack of previous criminal history justify a reduction in sentence for offences under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a sentence reduction permissible when the accused has already served a substantial portion of the awarded imprisonment?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Fayyaz Ahmad S/O Muhammad Iqbal was tried alongwith his co-accused Muhammad Rafique by Magistrate Section-30, Gujranwala in case FIR No, 154 dated 21.5:2000 a /S. 392 PPC. Police Station Girjakh. Gujranwala whereby he was convicted u/S. 392, 411 as under:-- U/S. 392 PPC Imprisonment for three years R.I with a fine of Rs, 15000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for two months.
U/S. 411 PPC Imprisonment for one year Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. is given to the petitioner.
Through the same judgment Muhammad Rafique was also convicted in the offenses as mentioned above. Their appeals against conviction filed by both the convicts were declined by the'learned ASJ, Gujranwala on 29.3.2004.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in complaint Ex. PC are that on 21.5.2000 the complainant alongwith his wife was coming to his house from the house of his in- laws. When they reached at the corner of Street Rajputan, two persons stopped them and the person with small height asked the other person to fire at them upon which the complainant inquired about the matter upon which both of them asked him to part with what he has in his possession. Thereafter the person with small height started- searching his person and removed wrist watch.. The complainant also handed over Rs, 58,00/- to them. Both the above-said persons asked the complainant's wife to hand over the golden ornaments which she was wearing and the wife of the complainant handed over the gold ornaments weighing 5 toals to the accused. The accused fled away.
3. The trial Court framed the charge which was denied by the accused and they claimed trial.
4. After closing the prosecution evidence statements of the accused were recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations and claimed their innocence and false involvement.
5. The trial culminated into their conviction as mentioned above. They challenged their conviction and sentence through two criminal appeals but both were dismissed by the learned ASJ.
Gujranwala on 29.3.2004. Through the instant appeal Fayyaz Ahmad has challenged the judgment whereas Muhammad Rafique did not challenge the same. Learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the conviction and has prayed for reduction in sentence.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment.
7. Heard. Record perused.
Admittedly, the complainant himself sworn affidavit before the appellate Court exonerating the petitioner. Similarly his wife Bilqees Bibi had also made some concession in her statement while she was being examined as PW-3, even then the petitioner has not challenged his conviction recorded against him by both the Court below. However, he has prayed that sentence be reduced as having been already undergone as he has served out one year substantial sentence out of three years. The petitioner was arrested on 19.2.2001 alongwith his co-accused Muhammad Rafique and they have served out one year substantial sentence out of three years. Recovery of alleged articles have not been affected. As the prosecution case was established by ocular account and was corroborated by the recovery memo supported by the I.O., therefore, he is justified in not challenging his conviction. As far as sentence is concerned, as mentioned above the parties had compromised during the trial, and the petitioner and his co-accused Muhammad Rafique have no previous criminal history, therefore, lenient view is being taken and sentence is reduced to that of having been already undergone. Both the accused are ordered to be released forth with if not required to be detained in any other criminal case.