GHULAM HAIDER vs The STATE
The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reduced his sentence for a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had been originally sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 for causing serious head injuries to the complainant. On appeal, the High Court reduced the imprisonment to the period already served, citing a compromise between the parties, but maintained the full fine of Rs. 10,000. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of fine imposed was excessive given the circumstances of the case. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the fine of Rs. 10,000 was indeed too severe. Consequently, the Court reduced the fine to Rs. 5,000, ordering that the entire amount be paid to the victim as compensation, while maintaining the default sentence of imprisonment in case of non-payment.
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of fine imposed by the High Court if it is found to be excessive?
- Is a sentence of fine subject to reduction upon appeal even if the term of imprisonment has already been served?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner was convicted under section 307, P.P.C for causing serious injuries to Ghulam Muhammad, P.W.4, including to, on the head and was sentenced by the learned trial Magistrate to 7 year's R.I. And a fine of Rs.10,000, in default thereof to simple imprisonment for to years.
2. On appeal, a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, sitting at Bahawalpur, gaining the impression that the parties had entered into a compromise and further observing that the petitioner had served out more than one year of his sentence reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the sentenced already undergone by him, but maintained the sentence of fine of Rs.10,000, half of which, on realisation, was to be paid to Ghulam Muhammad, P.W.4 as compensation.
3. The petitioner, still feeling aggrieved, has moved this Court for leave to appeal.
4. After hearing his learned counsel, we feel that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 is to severe, in the circumstances of the case. We issued notice to the Advocate General (Pb.) and Mr. Khalil Ramday, learned A.A.-G. Has appeared his behalf and has been heard.
5. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, we are inclined to reduce the sentence of fine to Rs.5,000.
6. This petition is, accordingly, converted into appeal and allowed to the extent that the sentence of fine is reduced to Rs.5,000, which shall, as realisation, be paid in its entirety to Ghulam Muhammad, P.W.4, as compensation. In default of payment of the fine, the petitioner shall suffer further simple imprisonment for to years, as already ordered.