MUHAMMAD UMAR @ UMRI vs STATE
This criminal appeal arises from a jail petition challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentences for offenses including Qatl-e-Amd and attempted murder. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the adjustment of pre-trial detention against the substantive sentence, given that the lower courts had denied this benefit without recording reasons. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to this benefit. The Court reasoned that unless exceptional circumstances exist—which were absent in this case—the trial court is obligated to consider the period of pre-trial detention. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should normally be granted to an accused, and where lower courts omit to consider or deny this concession without recording sufficient reasons, the appellate court may extend this benefit to the accused.
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for an accused unless exceptional circumstances exist?
- Can an appellate court grant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial court failed to consider it?
- Must a court record reasons for denying the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to an accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Moosa Khan Leghari, J.--This jail petition arises out of judgment dated 1.4.2005 delivered by learned Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioner in the following terms were upheld: "Under Section 302 (b) 149 PPC, Life imprisonment and compensation of Rs,50,000/- or in default 6 months S.I. each.
Under Section 324/149 PPC, 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs,5,000/- or in default 3 months S.I. each.
Under Section 452/149 PPC, four years R.I. and fine of Rs,1,000/- or in default one month S.I. each.
Under Section 452/149 PPC, one year R.I. with a fine of Rs,1000/- or in default one month S.I. each.
Under Section 149 PPC, one year R.I. with a fine of Rs,1000/- or in default one month S.I. each".
2.Consequent upon registration of F.I.R. No, 76 of 2000, Police Station, Qabula, District, Pakpattan Shard under Sections 302/324/337- A(ii)/337-F(0/337-L(ii)/452/148/149 PPC, the petitioner alongwith ten other accused persons were tried for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Mst. Rehmat Bibi and attempting to commit Qatl-e-Amd of Ghulam Farid and Rashid Ali. He was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court as reproduced above. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned High Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the case of "Ghulam Murtaza. Vs. The State" (PLD 1998 S.C. 152) has raised a grievance that the trial Court as well as Appellate Court has denied the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. to the petitioner without recording any reasons. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General was unable to controvert the above position.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab and examining the judgments passed by the trial Court and the learned High Court, we find that neither the petitioner has been granted the benefit admissible under Section 382-B Cr.P.C. nor reasons have been recorded for denial thereof. In case of Ghulam Murtaza Vs. The State (Supra), this Court has held as under:-- "In the case of Liaquat Ali. v. The State PLD 1995 S.C. 485 the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court considered the effect of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. and came to the conclusion that where the Courts below have omitted to consider grant of concession of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. to the accused, the same benefit can be extended by this Court.
From the preceding precedent it appears that unless there are any exceptional circumstances in a case which the Court considers sufficient for the purpose of denying the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. to the accused, the Court in all other cases while awarding sentence, will take into consideration the period during which the accused remained in detention during his trial, and this period will normally be adjusted in the sentence awarded to the accused by allowing him the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C".
5. On examination of the facts of the case, we have not discovered any exceptional circumstance in the case in hand warranting denial of benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. We accordingly, while granting leave convert it into appeal, allow the same and direct that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.