MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE
This criminal revision petition challenges the appellate judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, whereby the petitioner's conviction under sections 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code was maintained, but the substantive sentence of imprisonment was reduced. The core legal question concerns the quantum of sentence and whether mitigating circumstances such as the petitioner's youth, absence of prior criminal record, and prolonged trial proceedings warrant a further reduction of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The Lahore High Court held that while the concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's guilt and conviction do not warrant interference, the substantive sentence of imprisonment should indeed be reduced to the period already undergone, keeping intact the financial penalties of Arsh and Daman. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone in view of mitigating factors like youth and protracted litigation, while maintaining the statutory financial compensation awards.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact on conviction recorded by the courts below warrant interference in criminal revision?
- Can the substantive sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone in view of the petitioner's youth and protracted trial?
- What are the legal consequences under the Pakistan Penal Code if the awarded amount of Arsh and Daman is not deposited within the specified period?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-Z, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-X, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
In this revision the judgment dated 24‑10‑1996 passed by Kh. Shaukat Iqbal Sikka, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab is challenged on the ground that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. under section 337‑A(ii), P.P.C. and further sentenced under sections 337‑A(i) and 337‑F(i) to pay Daman of ‑Rs.500 upon his conviction for causing injuries to one Muhammad Younas at the report lodged by one Shabbir Ahmad. Earlier to the decision of learned lower Appellate Court, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Magistrate and sentenced to three years R.I. and Arsh amounting to Rs. 8,530 under section 337‑A(ii) and further to pay Daman amounting to Rs.2,000 under section 337‑A(i) and 337‑F(i). However, that sentence was reduced by the learned lower Appellate Court as aforesaid.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is a young boy of less than 20 years of age and has no previous criminal history. He is facing the rigours of trial since July, 1992 after registration of the case and remained behind the bars initially for 2 months and 22 days after he was arrested in the case. Thereafter, upon his conviction by the learned trial Court and before he was bailed out by the learned lower Appellate Court he remained in jail for 3 months and as such he remained behind the bars for approximately 5 months and 22 days. It is, therefore, submitted that keeping in view the facts of the case, age of petitioner and the amount of Arsh and Daman, it will be just and proper if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone.
3. The learned State Counsel has no objection to the reduction of sentence in the given situation.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings on the questions of facts while convicting and awarding sentence to the petitioner for causing injuries to one Muhammad Younas P.W. In such a situation, the conviction would not call for any interference, but a case of further reduction of sentence is made out, in the light of circumstances pointed out above. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with respect to the conviction recorded against the petitioner but sentence is further reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence of Arsh and Daman awarded by the learned Courts below is however, maintained. The amount of Arsh and Daman totalling Rs. 9,530 shall be deposited by the petitioner in the learned trial Court within one year in lump sum or in the equal monthly instalments. The amount of Arsh and Daman shall be distributed in accordance with provisions contained in section 337‑Z, P.P.C. If the amount aforesaid is not paid within the specified period, of one year, the provisions contained in section 337‑X would be applicable and the convict may be kept in jail and dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to simple imprisonment until Arsh is paid m full. The petitioner is already on bail and his bail bonds are discharged.
N.H.Q./M‑1115/L
Sentence reduced.