MUHAMMAD SOOTA And Others vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a criminal revision by the High Court, which had upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for an offence under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, Muhammad Boota and Bashir Ahmad, were originally sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. Upon hearing the petition, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment regarding Muhammad Boota. However, regarding Bashir Ahmad, the Court considered the minor role attributed to him in the commission of the offence. The State counsel having no objection, the Court exercised its discretion to convert the petition into an appeal and accepted it to the extent of reducing Bashir Ahmad's sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. The key principle established is that the appellate court may exercise discretion to reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone where the role of the accused is minor and the prosecution does not object.
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone based on the minor role of an accused?
- Is it permissible for the appellate court to maintain a fine while reducing the term of imprisonment to the period already undergone?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Muhammad Boota and Bashir Ahmad petitioners were tried alongwith Abdul Karim and Niaz for offence under section 307/34. P.P.C. The to co-accused were acquitted but the petitioners were sentenced to 5 years' R.I. Each and a fine of RS.2,000 each. Their appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge--Faisalabad and their criminal revision was dismissed by the High Courts in limine vide the impugned order.
Hence the present petition.
2. When the case came up for hearing before this Court on 10-3-1984, it was found that there was no ground for interference with the judgment of the High Court as far as Boota petitioner was concerned. Notice was, however, issued to the Advocate-General, Punjab, with regard to the case of Bashir Ahmad.
3. The case again came up for hearing today and we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the Advocate-General, Punjab.
4. In view of the minor role attributed to Bashir Ahmad petitioner, his counsel submitted that his sentence may be reduced to that already undergone by him. The learned State counsel has no objection. We also agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We accordingly convert the petition, into appeal, accept it and reduce the sentence of Bashir Ahmad petitioner to that already undergone by him. The sentence of fine, is, however, maintained. He shall be set at liberty for with if not required in some other case.