NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND Another vs The STATE
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court judgment that reduced the sentences of the appellants, Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddiq, who had been convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge under sections 325, 323, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants did not contest the merits of the conviction but argued that the High Court had failed to properly consider the provisions of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates that the court must take into account the period of pre-trial detention when sentencing an accused to imprisonment. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the impugned judgment and determined that the High Court had, in fact, duly considered the period of detention while exercising its discretion to reduce the sentences from seven years to four years of rigorous imprisonment. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appellants' contention regarding the omission of the statutory requirement. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the High Court had satisfied the legal obligation to account for pre-trial custody.
- Is a court required to consider the period of pre-trial detention when sentencing an accused to imprisonment under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to explicitly mention the consideration of pre-trial detention in a judgment necessarily imply that the court failed to apply Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 39, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.- Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddiq, appellants, were tried under section 302/307/39, P. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, however, convicted them under section 325/323/34, P. P. C. And sentenced them as follows: "Under section 325, P. P. C: Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddique were sentenced to 7 years'
R. I. And a fine of Rs. 1,000 each or one year R. I. Each in default of payment of fine. Under section 323/34, P. P. C. Each of them was sentenced to one year R. While Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Ghani were sentenced only to one year R. I., each under section 325/34, P. P. C. And another one year R. I. Under section 323/34, P: P. C: each. All the sentences were to run concurrently:"
2. On appeal the High Court reduced, the sentences of Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Ghani to that period already undergone. It reduced, the sentences of Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddique to 4 years R. I., each with a fine of Rs. 1,000 each or six months R. I., In default of payment of fine. It, however, made no mention of the sentence under section 323/34, P. P. C. As that sentence bad already been served.
3. The present appeal is directed against the abovementioned judgment of the High Court reducing the appellants' sentence.
4. Before us the counsel for the appellants did not contest the case in merits but only submitted that the learned High Court had omitted to reconsider the provision of section382-b, Cr. P: C., which provides that the Court sentencing the accused to imprisonment is required to take into consideration the period during which he (the accused) was detained in custody for the offence in question.
5. On going through the last paragraph (pare: No. 7) of the impugned judgment we find that the learned Judge in Chamber had in fact, considered this question while reducing the sentences of the appellants: under section 325/34, P. P. C. From.7 years'. R. I. To, 4, years' R; I.
6. The appeal has no merit and is consequently dismissed.