Agha ABDUR RAHMAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition filed by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police challenging the High Court judgment that dismissed his appeal against conviction and sentence under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as recorded by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. The core question involved whether the concurrent findings of guilt based on extortion, extra-judicial confession, and causing hurt were sustainable, and whether the sentence warranted interference. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the conviction was fully merited and supported by trustworthy evidence, finding no ground to interfere with it. However, considering that the conviction entailed departmental consequences, the Court partially allowed the appeal only to the extent of modifying the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The key principle laid down is that while concurrent findings of fact on criminal conviction based on reliable ocular and medical evidence will not be disturbed by the apex court, the manner of serving sentences of imprisonment can be adjusted in appropriate circumstances.
- Whether concurrent findings of conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act are sustainable when supported by ocular and medical evidence?
- Can sentences of imprisonment for distinct offences under the Pakistan Penal Code be ordered to run concurrently by the Supreme Court?
- Whether an extra-judicial confession corroborated by prosecution witnesses and medical evidence is sufficient to uphold a conviction?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-Petitioner Agha Abdul Rehman, an A. S. I. Of Police, is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, dated 10-11-1982, whereby his appeal from conviction and sentence under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and section 323, P. P. C. Recorded by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore-I, was dismissed.
2. The case against the petitioner was that he had sent for Munshi complainant when the latter was busy with the marriage of his son, and extorted from him Rs, 200. On the third day Munshi went to the dera of Muzaffar Iqbal and informed him, in the presence of Muhammad Riaz Cheema, of the incident, whereupon they took him to the police station in order to present an application to the S. H.
0. The petitioner, who met them there, however, made an extra-judicial confession before them, returned Rs, 50 which was at that time with him and promised to pay the remaining amount later.
The next morning i,e, on 11-4-1975, Munshi was sent for to appear at the police station through a constable, and when he went there he was given severe beating by the petitioner. Luckily he was rescued by Muzaffar lqbal and Muhammad Riaz Cheema who happened to arrive there at that time. He was medically examined the same day, in the result of which nine simple injuries were found all over his body, caused by blunt weapon. Munshi filed an application containing these allegations the next day before Assistant Commissioner, Pasroor, who happened to be on a visit to the locality, whereupon the case was initiated against the petitioner.
3. The prosecution case was fully supported by Munshi complainant (P. W. 4), Muzaffar Iqbal (P. W.
5), Muhammad Riaz Cheema (P. W. 6) and the medical evidence. Mr. Muhammad Ayub, the then A.
C. Pasroor (P. W. 3) also supported the fact that Munshi had complained to him in the matter by an application whereupon he had recorded the statements of the witnesses and forwarded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot. The petitioner denied the allegations and stated that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of Muzaffar Iqbal and Muhammad Riaz, P. Ws. Who had wanted to draw illegal benefits from him, to which he did not agree. He further stated that Munshi had received his injuries by fall from a rehra. He examined three witnesses in defence, who stated generally that the petitioner was an honest person and that Munshi was a worker of Muzaffar Iqbal and Muhammad Riaz Cheema who had sought illegal benefits from the petitioner to which the latter had not agreed. The Special Judge being satisfied that the case against the petitioner was proved, convicted and sentenced him to R. I. For one year plus a fine of Rs, 500 or in default in payment thereof to R.
1. For three months under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and to R. I. For six months under section 323, P. P. C. Which sentences were to run consecutively. With this conviction and the sentence the High Court had agreed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner but feel satisfied that the conviction of the petitioner is fully merited and no interference is called for. However, on the question of the sentence, it is submitted that as the conviction would entail departmental action also there was a scope for reduction in the same. Mr. M. M. Saeed Baig, who is present in response to notice, has no objection if the two sentences be made to run concurrently. We accordingly convert this petition into appeal and order that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.