WAHEEDULLAH vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, Waheedullah, who was sentenced by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi, to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 under sections 392 and 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his involvement in F.I.R. No. 142 of 2004. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether, given the appellant's repentance, his young age, and his difficult family circumstances, the sentence imposed by the trial court warranted mitigation. Upon reviewing the appellant's personal circumstances, including his custody since June 5, 2004, and his expression of remorse, the Court exercised its discretion to modify the sentence. The Court held that the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. Furthermore, the Court reduced the fine from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 500 for each count, stipulating that in default of payment, the appellant would suffer two days of imprisonment. This judgment affirms the principle that appellate courts may exercise leniency in sentencing based on the convict's remorse and personal hardship.
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone based on the convict's repentance and personal circumstances?
- Is it permissible for an appellate court to reduce the amount of a fine imposed by a trial court under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.---Appellant Waheedullah son of Shah Daraz has been produced in custody by the jail authorities. He was convicted by judgment, dated 1-3-2007 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi, under sections 392 and 394, P.P.C. In F.I.R. No,142 of 2004 registered at Shah Latif Town Police Station and sentenced him to suffer R.I. For four years and also to pay fine of Rs,10,000 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. For two months.
2. ' The accused is present in person. He repents on his act and promise that he will not repeat this crime again. He says that his father has died and his mother, who is an old lady, has recently met with an accident and has lost her fingers.
3. ' The appellant is in custody since 5-6-2004. Keeping in view the repentence of the convict, his young age and his promise not to commit the crime again, his sentence is reduced to the one already undergone while amount of fine is reduced from Rs,10,000 to Rs,500 each and in default of payment of fine to suffer Z.I. For two days more on both counts. With this modification and reduction in the sentence, this .