Mst. HAMIDA BEGUM and another vs THE STATE and 3 others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking the enhancement of sentences imposed on the respondents. The underlying incident occurred in 1964, resulting in the death of Muhammad Siddiq and injuries to others. The trial court had convicted the respondents under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, awarding sentences that the petitioners argued were inadequate and based on legal errors regarding the application of Exception 4 to Section 300. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether it was appropriate to interfere with the High Court's refusal to enhance sentences after a significant lapse of time. The Supreme Court held that while the trial court's judgment contained legal defects, the inordinate delay of twenty-two years since the occurrence, coupled with the fact that the respondents had already served their sentences, justified the High Court's refusal to disturb the position. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretion to interfere, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with a High Court's refusal to enhance a sentence when there has been an inordinate delay in the disposal of the matter?
- Does the fact that a convict has already served their sentence influence the court's discretion in deciding whether to enhance that sentence upon revision?
- Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioners closely related to the deceased Muhammad Siddiq, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 3-6-1985 whereby their Criminal Revision Petition seeking enhancement in the sentence was dismissed.
3. In an occurrence which took place as far back as 1-1964, Muhammad Siddiq died of injuries received by spear. Nawab Muhammad Ali and Meraj of the compiainant party also received injuries. The respondents were tried and the respondent No,2 was sentenced by the trial Court under section 304, Part I to seven years R.I. And under section 324, P.P.C. To one year R.I. The respondent No,3 was sentenced under section 307, P.P.C. For 3 years R.I. And respondent No,4 was sentenced under section 325 to one year R.I. The learned Judge in High Court dismissed the petition for enhancement observing as follows:- "In view of the long delay in the disposal of this petition and the fact that Nek Muhammad, one of the accused, has died, and rest of the accused have already served out their sentences and been released, I would not like to disturb the position, for even assuming that I were to hold that intrinsically the judgment of the learned trial Judge is incorrect, I would not like to order a retrial after so many years. Taking all circumstances into consideration, I would dismiss this petition.
3. Ch. Azimuddin, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to glaring legal errors on the basis of which the trial Court recorded the conviction and sentence in the manner indicated. For example the following observation of the learned trial Court:- "When origin and causes of fight could not he clearly given the only presumption possible is that offence of homicide fell under Exception 4 of section 300, P.P.C. Which would he punishable under section 304, Part I."
' Similarly, the following observation was made by the learned Sessions Judge:- "The rest not being charged for simple injuries are acquitted of the charge of attempted murder when independent injury cannot be traced to any individual person."
4. The learned counsel also contended that even for the offences held proved, the sentence awarded is not justified on the facts of the case and a more serious view of the involvement of the respondents in the crime should have been taken and reflected in awarding the sentence.
5. We find that the learned Judges in the High Court while issuing notice to the respondents on 12- 12-1968 and while finally dismissing the revision petition on 3-6-1985 were fully aware of the mistakes pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. What weighed was the inordinate delay in disposal of the matter and the fact that the respondents had already suffered the sentence that was awarded to them. The matter has come up before us after 22 years of the occurrence and in spite of the defects pointed out and noted by us, we consider that the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in the High Court does not call for our interference. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, after such lapse of time.
' Leave to appeal is therefore, refused.