SHAHBAZ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This petition arose from a criminal conviction where the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment on two counts for the murders of two individuals. The petitioner sought a judicial direction that the sentences of life imprisonment run concurrently rather than consecutively. The Lahore High Court examined the legal position regarding the aggregation of sentences in a single trial. Relying on the principles established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Javed Sheikh v. The State (1985 SCMR 153) and Muhammad Ittefaq v. The State (1986 SCMR 1627), the Court noted that the scheme of the Pakistan Penal Code and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly Section 35, intend to prevent the imposition of consecutive sentences that exceed the maximum limits historically contemplated by the law. Consequently, the Court held that in the interest of justice, the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner for the two counts of murder should run concurrently. The Court ordered that this direction be treated as an integral part of the original judgment.
- Can sentences of life imprisonment awarded in a single trial be directed to run concurrently?
- Does Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibit consecutive sentences that exceed the maximum punishment limits?
- Is a court empowered to direct that sentences of imprisonment run concurrently to ensure they do not exceed the statutory intendment of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 35, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 35(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.--- The relevant facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner was sent up to face trial in case F.I.R. No,110 registered at Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan, on 11-3-1998 for offence under section 302, P.P.C. For causing the murders of Mst. Hasna and Mst. Najma Firdous. Vide judgment, dated 23-7-1999, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner on two counts and sentenced him to death. He was also directed to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation on each count to the legal heirs of the deceased as enjoined by section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through Criminal Appeal No,319-J of 1999. Vide judgment dated 3-3-2004 the learned Division Bench of this Court maintained the conviction of the petitioner for offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. On two counts.
However, the sentence was reduced to life imprisonment on both counts. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the petitioner and the direction of the learned trial Court under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Was maintained. Through this petition, the petitioner has sought direction that the sentences be run concurrently.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. It was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Javed Sheikh v. The State 1985 SCM R 153 as follows:-- "A perusal of proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C. Indicates that it prohibits the giving of consecutive sentence in one trial beyond the period of fourteen years, the maximum sentence, short of death sentence which could be imposed on an offender before the promulgation of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The said provision of section 35, Cr.P.C. Appears to be in consonance with the scheme and intendment of the Pakistan Penal Code that an offender should only suffer the maximum sentence of imprisonment for any heinous crime (as it stood until 1972) which should not exceed fourteen years. Therefore, the imposition of the sentence of life imprisonment (which means 25 years' R.I.) plus seven years' R.I. Under section 307, P.P.C. Would be inconsistent with the intendment of the provisions of proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C. Inasmuch as the maximum punishment prescribed for heinous offence shall be exceeded. The difficulty in this case can be overcome if the sentences awarded to the appellant in respect of the two convictions under section 302, P.P.C. And under section 307, P.P.C. In one and the same trial are directed to run concurrently instead of running consecutively."
' The observations made by the apex Court in Javed Shaikh's case (supra) were followed in the case of Muhammad Ittefaq v. The State published at page 1627 of 1986 SCMR.
4. Following the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, we, in the interest of justice, direct that all the sentences of imprisonment inflicted upon the petitioner in the instant case would run concurrently. This order would be deemed to be an integral part of the original judgment.