MEHRBAN KHAN vs GHULAM MURTAZA and otherss
This appeal, by leave of the Court, arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the potential enhancement of a sentence for a convict, Ghulam Murtaza. The core legal question was whether an appeal seeking the enhancement of a sentence becomes infructuous once the convict has already served the sentence imposed, including remissions. The Supreme Court examined the record provided by the Superintendent of Jail, Rawalpindi, confirming that the respondent had already undergone the sentence of 25 years' rigorous imprisonment and the additional imprisonment in lieu of compensation under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Relying on the precedent established in Bahadur Ali v. The State (2002 SCMR 93), the Court held that since the respondent had already served the sentence, the appeal for enhancement had become infructuous. The Court directed the immediate release of the respondent regarding the offence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while noting he must remain in custody until the expiry of his sentence under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
- Does an appeal for the enhancement of a sentence become infructuous if the convict has already served the sentence imposed?
- Can a convict be released if they have served the full term of their sentence, including remissions, despite a pending appeal for enhancement?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against judgment, dated 27-12-2002 passed by Lahore High Court.
2. In pursuance of order, dated 16-4-2004, Superintendent Jail, Rawalpindi has submitted details of the sentences and the remission earned by respondent Ghulam Murtaza under section 302, P.P.C. a perusal whereof indicates that he has already undergone sentence of 25 years' R.I. And six months'
R.I. In lieu of compensation of Rs,20,000 after having earned remissions. Thus, it is held that respondent had served out sentences under section 302, P.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that as the convict has already undergone legal sentence, therefore, in view of the judgment Bahadur Ali v. The State 2002 SCM R 93 and 2002 SCM R 93 appeal filed by the complainant has become infructuous.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for appellant opposed the argument so advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent and stated that in a number of cases, matters have been referred to larger Bench to consider whether after having served sentence of life imprisonment Court can enhance the sentence of a convict to penalty of death under section 302 under circumstances of each case.
5. Learned counsel for the State has also adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. After hearing parties' counsel and having gone through reported judgment referred to above, we are of the opinion that all the cases pending on the file of this Court are to be decided according to law already laid down by this Court and matters cannot be kept pending till the decision of the larger Bench. Thus, as per law laid down in the above cited case, respondent Ghulam Murtaza has already undergone sentence under section 302, P.P.C. As such appeal for enhancement of his sentence has become infructuous. Therefore, jail authorities are directed to release him from custody in the offence under section 302, P.P.C. However, he will remain in custody till the expiry of sentence under section 324, P.P.C. As per the decision of High Court, dated 27-12-2002.
7. For the foregoing reasons appeal is disposed of as having become in fructuous.
Cited by 4 cases
- Ghulam Shabbir vs The State and others 2021 PLD Lahore 200
- Ghulam Shabbir vs The State Etc 2021 KLR Criminal Cases 104
- Syed Karam Hussain Shah & another vs The State 2019 KLR Civil Cases 470, 2019 IHC 60, 2019 MLD 1445
- Fazal Hussain & another vs Muhammad Taj & 2 others 2017 SCR 1050