NADIR ALI and another's vs STATE
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, convicting the appellants under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to ten years rigorous imprisonment each with compensation. At the hearing, the appellants' counsel did not contest the conviction but prayed solely for a reduction of sentence. The core legal question concerned the quantum of sentence in view of mitigating circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that the conviction was well-founded upon consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, and recoveries, but found the sentence excessive given the lack of premeditation, sudden provocation arising from a children's squabble, single blows delivered without repetition, and the period already served. The court dismissed the appeal as to conviction but partly allowed it regarding the sentence, reducing the imprisonment to the term already undergone while upholding the compensation order. The key principle laid down is that where an unpremeditated offence occurs under sudden provocation without repetition of blows, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone in the interest of justice.
- Can the sentence of imprisonment be reduced when the appellant does not challenge the conviction?
- Does an unpremeditated act arising from a sudden squabble constitute a mitigating circumstance for reduction of sentence under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether imprisonment can be reduced to the period already undergone in view of lack of repetition of blows and mitigating factors?
- Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Nadir Ali and Sabir Ali appellants were convicted for an offence under Section 302(c), P,PC vide judgment dated 19.06.2001 handed down by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a sum of Rs, 20,000/-each to the heirs of Akhtar Ali deceased or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. The benefit under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellants. The appellants have challenged their convictions and sentences before this Court through the present appeal.
2. At the outset the learned counsel for the appellants has stated that he does not challenge the convictions of the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court and he only prays for reduction in of the appellants' sentences of imprisonment. As against that the learned counsel for the State has maintained that as long as the convictions of the appellants are not disturbed he has nothing much to say on the question of sentence as the same lies within the discretion of the Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I have observed that the ocular account furnished in this case was quite consistent and believable and the same had received corroboration from recovery and motive besides receiving support from the medical evidence. The learned trial Court had felt convinced that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant to the hilt and I have not been Able to take any legitimate exception to the said conclusion of the learned trial Court.
4. As regards the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellants by the learned trial Court it has been noticed by me that the criminal case in hand had originated about four years ago. The prosecution's own case shows that the occurrence in this case was not a result of any premeditation or preconcert as the injuries sustained by the complainant party had been occasioned by and were a sequel to an altercation taking place between the parties at the spot on account of some squabble between the children of the parties. The situation had degenerated at the spot and had taken an ugly turn prompting the appellants to resort to violence. Even according to the FIR itself the appellants had been provoked at the spot. Even in that state of provocation the appellants had caused only one injury each and had not repeated the blows. Even the learned trial Court had concluded that the sotas used by the appellants were of common-pattern and the appellants did not share any common intention. A report submitted by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sahiwal, shows that the appellants have already served out more than five years' imprisonment in this case. Thus, in the peculiar circumstances of this case I have felt that the sentences of imprisonment passed by the learned trial Court against the appellants are rather oppressive and excessive. In this view of the matter this appeal is dismissed to the extent of the convictions of the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court but the same is partly allowed to the extent of the sentences of imprisonment passed by the learned trial Court against the appellants which are reduced to those already undergone by them. The order passed by the learned trial Court regarding payment of compensation by the appellants to the heirs of the deceased and the order regarding sentences of imprisonment in default of payment thereof are, however, upheld and maintained. This appeal is disposed of in these terms.