SHAHID Alias BABU vs The STATE
This petition arises out of a criminal conviction under sections 366 and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, originating from an incident in 1968. The trial court convicted the petitioner in 1969, and his appeal remained pending before the High Court for approximately fifteen years before being dismissed and maintaining the conviction. Upon conversion of the petition into an appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the core legal question concerned the appropriate quantum of sentence given the extreme delay in the final disposal of the case and the subsequent passage of sixteen years. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the conviction itself but held that, considering the lengthy delay, the fact that both parties were now married with grown-up children, and that serving further imprisonment would not serve the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that inordinate and unexplained appellate delay, coupled with subsequent rehabilitation and passage of time, can be a mitigating factor for reducing a sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone.
- Whether inordinate appellate delay can constitute a mitigating ground for reducing a sentence of imprisonment?
- Does the passage of a long period of time since the commission of an offence justify reducing a sentence to the term already undergone?
- Section 366, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Shahid petitioner was tried for offences under section 366/376, P.P.C.
Committed by him as far back as 1968, in relation' to Mst. Nasim Akhtar, prosecutrix. He was convicted and sentenced for the said offences by the learned trial Magistrate by his judgment, dated 31-7-1969. He filed an appeal before the 'High Court in the same year 1969 but the case, somehow, kept pending and was not fixed till 9th April, 1984, i.e. After about 15 years. The High Court maintained his conviction and sentence vice the impugned judgment.
Hence the present petition.
2. We issued notice to the State and Mian Nusratullah, Advocate appeared in compliance thereto on behalf of the State.
Considering that it is a very old case we do not wish to delay it any further, therefore, we convert it into appeal and proceed to dispose of it as such.
3. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Petitioner's counsel did not have much to urge and we do not think this to be a fit case for setting aside his conviction, but considering that almost 16 years have passed since the commission of the offence, and both the persons involved are married and each of them have 'a number of grown up children, we do not think that it shall serve the ends of justice to send the petitioner back to the jail at this juncture.
We, therefore, allow the appeal to the extent that his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. He is already on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.
Cited by 2 cases
- SIKANDAR SHAH vs RAZA SHAH and anothers 2015 PLJ SC 117, 2015 SCMR 10
- GHULAM NABI vs THE STATE 1995 P Cr. L J 100