ARSHAD vs The STATE
This matter arises from a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the evidence on record was of sufficient quality to sustain the appellant's conviction for instigating the principal offenders who inflicted grievous injuries on the complainant. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently accepted the testimony of the prosecution witnesses attributing the role of instigation to the appellant. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any error in the lower courts' appraisal of evidence, the concurrent findings regarding guilt must be maintained. However, considering the passage of approximately nine years since the incident, the Court adopted a lenient view regarding the substantive sentence, reducing it to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine and the sentence in default thereof. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with the specified modification to the sentence.
- Whether the evidence of instigation is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 326 read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below in the absence of an error in the appraisal of evidence?
- Whether the passage of a long period of time in litigation can be a ground for reducing the substantive sentence while maintaining the conviction?
- Section 326, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the evidence against the appellant was of a quality to sustain his conviction on the charge under section 326, P.P.C. Read with section 109, P. P. C In the F.I.R. And the depositions of the witnesses, namely Khushi Muhammad P.W.5 and Rao Shamshad Ali P.W.6, the appellant has been ascribed the role of instigating the others to beat the complainant party, and, as a result of that instigation, Muhammad Anwar and Maqbool Ahmad had caused injuries to Muhammad Daud with sharp-edged weapons such as a butcher's hatchet and a chopper. The complainant, according to the medical evidence, suffered four injuries out of which two were grievous .In nature.
2. The Courts below have consistently accepted the role ascribed to the appellant and have rested his conviction on evidence which has been accepted to establish the guilt of Muhammad Anwar and Maqbool Ahmad. In the absence of any error in its appraisal, we do not see evidence by the any reason to differ from that assessment of the Courts below.
3. Accordingly, we would maintain his conviction, but as the incident is an old one and it has taken almost nine years for the litigation to end, we would take a lenient view of his sentence and reduce it to that already undergone. However, we would maintain the fine and the sentence awarded in lieu thereof. Subject to this modification the appeal is dismissed.
4. The appellant is on bail, and his bail bonds shall stand discharged if the fine is paid. Else he should be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine.