IHSANULLAH vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal matter wherein the petitioner challenged a High Court judgment that had upheld his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to two years for shooting at the complainant. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to a reduction in sentence given the circumstances of the incident, specifically the claim of the right of private defence of property and the subsequent reconciliation between the parties. The Supreme Court, noting that the incident occurred eleven years prior and that the complainant had forgiven the petitioner, found it appropriate to exercise its discretion regarding sentencing. The Court allowed the appeal to the extent of reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that in cases where significant time has elapsed since the commission of an offence and the complainant has genuinely forgiven the accused, the Court may exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, particularly when the State offers no objection to such mitigation.
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on the passage of time and the complainant's forgiveness?
- Does the right of private defence of property under section 104 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 justify the infliction of non-fatal injuries on a trespasser?
- Section 104, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' ASLANT RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Ihsanullah petitioner has applied for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing his appeal, but reducing his sentence of imprisonment from 5 years' to 2 years' R.I.
2. He is alleged to have shot at Shah Nawaz complainant with a pistol which resulted in a grazed injury to the complainant. The petitioner's counsel submitted that according to F.I.R. Itself Shah Nawaz complainant is stated to have entered his (Ihsanullah petitioner's) land and prevented him from plugging it. He urged that this gave rise to the right of defence of property to the petitioner who, as provided by section 104, P.P.C., could thereafter inflict any injury, short of causing death to the trespasser. It may be added that the complainant has himself appeared before us in the Court and submitted that the incident took place 11 years ago; that the accused is related to him and has young children and that he has forgiven him from his heart. The petitioner's counsel prays for the reduction of his sentence.
3. We issued notice to the Advocate-General. He appeared in response thereto and submits that he has no objection to the reduction in sentence.
We are of the view that in the above-noted circumstances this is a fit case for reduction of sentence. We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal and allow the same to the extent that the appellant's sentence is reduced to that already undergone by him. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in some other case.