Abdul Jabbar & another vs The State
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellants under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The appellants, having already served over 20 years in prison, sought a reduction of their sentence to the period already undergone, citing their lack of previous convictions, their status as sole breadwinners, and their satisfactory conduct in prison. The prosecution acknowledged the appellants' clean criminal record. The Court, while maintaining the conviction, observed that the appellants were young at the time of the offense and had already undergone substantial incarceration. Emphasizing the rehabilitative aim of imprisonment and the importance of human dignity, the Court held that the appellants should be granted an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already served, ordering their immediate release provided they were not required in any other case, aligning the decision with precedents where long-term sentences were reduced to the period already undergone.
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of life imprisonment to the period already undergone if the convict has served a significant portion of the sentence and has no prior convictions?
- Does the rehabilitative aim of imprisonment justify the reduction of a sentence for a long-term convict?
- Is it permissible for an appellate court to maintain a conviction while reducing the sentence based on the prisoner's conduct and potential for rehabilitation?
- Section 48, Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997
- Section 410, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Muhammad Ali Mazhar J. The appellants have brought this appeal under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 read with Section 410 Cr.P.C. to challenge their conviction of life imprisonment recorded in the Special Case No.12/2005 (FIR No.16/2005) lodged at P.S. ANF Karachi.
2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the appellants volunteered that he would not press the appeal if this court while maintaining the conviction, please to reduce the sentence and the appellants are released on the sentence already undergone. So far as other grounds are concerned, he added that though chemical examination was conducted but the narcotic substance from each bag was not examined separately even the Chemical Examiner was not examined by the prosecution. The police arrested both the appellants and the third accused person Wali Muhammad though arrested from the place of incident but he was declared innocent by the I.O. and he was released. He further argued that appellant Abdul Sattar was arrested from his house on the date of his marriage. Nikahnama was produced in the trial court, which was not considered. He further argued that both the appellants are not previously convicted. He further argued that both the appellants are the sole bread earners of their individual family. He also referred to the jail rolls of both the appellants. According to the jail roll dated 4.10.2014, age of both the appellants is 35 years and their conduct in the prison is also satisfactory.
Both the appellants have already served 20 years, 10 months and 21 days imprisonment and the unexpired portion of their sentence is 05 years. The learned counsel also referred to an order passed by learned divisional bench of this court in Criminal Jail Appeal No.271/2010 (Gul Azeem v.
The State) in which one of us (Naimatullah Phulpoto-J) was the member. The learned division bench maintained the conviction, however, the sentence was reduced to one already undergone.
Therefore, the learned counsel requests the reduction in sentence in the same lines as in that case also the appellant had already served 23 years imprisonment.
3. The learned Special Prosecutor ANF confirmed that both the appellants are not previously convicted in any case. He however, argued that according to jail roll the age of the appellants is 35 years and it is fact that they were sentenced to life imprisonment in young age as the conviction was recorded in the year 2008 and FIR was lodged in the year 2005.
4. Heard the arguments. The FIR was registered in the year 2005 and conviction was recorded in 2008. If we keep in mind the present age of the appellants, there are reasons to believe that at the time of conviction they must be around 28 years of age. One of the appellants claims to have been arrested by the police in this case on his marriage night from his home. The appellants have already served more than 20 years imprisonment so in our view they may be accorded at least one chance of rehabilitation so that they may lead their remaining life as a responsible citizen of this country; they may say goodbye to their past sins and criminal activities; and they may start a new life to contribute, help and support their family for their welfare and wellbeing. Rehabilitation is the re-integration into society of a convicted person while punishment remains one of the aims of imprisonment so the emphasis should also be made on the rehabilitative aim of imprisonment, particularly towards the end of a long prison. The human dignity requires that there must be a chance for a prisoner to atone for his offence and move towards rehabilitation. The learned counsel referred to the order passed by the divisional bench of this court in Criminal Jail Appeal No.271/2010 in which also the sentence was reduced to one already undergone.
5. As a result of above discussion, while maintaining the conviction, we reduce the sentence of the appellants to one already undergone. The appellants may be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. Appeal is disposed of.