DILBAR KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal petition was filed by a convict seeking directions for the concurrent running of two substantive sentences awarded to him in separate criminal cases. The petitioner, convicted in two distinct First Information Reports (F.I.Rs) involving murders committed on different occasions, argued for concurrent sentences citing his old age. The core legal question was whether sentences awarded in separate trials for distinct offences can be directed to run concurrently. The Peshawar High Court, relying on precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, held that where a convict is sentenced in two different cases through separate judgments, the sentences must run consecutively rather than concurrently. The Court emphasized that each criminal case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances. Given that the petitioner was convicted for the murders of two individuals from the same family on two separate occasions, the Court determined it would not be in the interest of justice to grant the relief sought. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that separate convictions generally result in consecutive sentences.
- Can sentences awarded in separate criminal cases through different judgments be directed to run concurrently?
- Does the old age of a convict provide sufficient grounds for directing separate substantive sentences to run concurrently?
- What is the legal position regarding the running of sentences when a convict is sentenced in two different F.I.Rs on different dates?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 10(4), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 449, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-J, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' FAZAL-I-HAQ ABBASI, J.--Dilbar Khan has moved the instant petition for issuance of directions of concurrent running of two substantive sentences awarded to him, on the ground of old-age, in two different F.I.Rs. i.e. In case F.I.R. No.776 dated 23-12-2001 under sections 302/ 324/34, P.P.C. Of P.S. Lahore District Swabi and in case F.I.R. No.125 dated 9-9-2003 under sections 302/34, P.P.C. P.S. Lahor District Swabi.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2011 PCr.LJ. 1340, whereby while accepting the constitutional petition, the learned Court directed concurrent running of the sentences awarded to the accused vide judgment dated 14-3-2002 in case F.I.R. No.33 dated 16-2-2001 under section 9(c) C.N.S.A.
Registered at P.S. Hassan Abdal and in case F.I.R. No.1113 dated 19-12-2000 under section 9(c)
C.N.S.A. Registered at P.S. Topi (Swabi).
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the petition and relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in case of Muhammad Ramzan v. State reported in 1989 SCM R 1405.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced on two different occasions in two separate F.I.Ks through separate Judgments, in such a situation it was held in 1989 SCM R 1405 that the sentences were to run consecutively and the petition for seeking directions to run the sentences concurrently was dismissed. In case of Nadeem alias Dimo v. The State, reported in 2007 SCM R 255, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the sentence of death awarded to the accused under section 10(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, convicted two of the accused under section 10(3) of the Ordinance and each of them was sentenced to twenty five years Rigorous Imprisonment. Conviction and sentence of accused, who committed sodomy was kept intact, while upholding the conviction of all the accused persons under sections 449 and 337- J, P.P.C.; reduced the sentences of imprisonment for each of offence to five years' imprisonment, but directed that all the sentences of imprisonment, to run consecutively.
6. When the petitioner was convicted and sentenced in two different F.I.Rs. Of two different dates, through separate judgments, in such a situation, sentences are to run consecutively. Each criminal case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. Keeping in view that the petitioner was convicted for the murders of two persons of the same family at two different occasions, it would not be in the interest of justice to direct the sentences to run concurrently. In this view of the matter this petition is dismissed.