SAMANDAR KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arose from a petition for leave to appeal challenging the sentence imposed on the appellants. While the appellants initially sought to raise weighty legal questions previously addressed by the Supreme Court and the Federal Shariat Court, counsel for the appellants ultimately abandoned these arguments, choosing not to contest the conviction itself. Instead, the appellants prayed for a reduction in the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment, citing precedents where similar offences resulted in a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment, and requested the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The State, represented by the Additional Advocate-General, could not provide any distinguishing factors justifying the harsher ten-year sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from ten years to five years and granting the appellants the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while maintaining the conviction and other aspects of the original order.
- Can a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment be reduced to five years when precedents for similar offences support the lesser term?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment?
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Leave to appeal was granted to the two appellants to examine the weighty questions arising out of the facts and dealt with in a number of other cases decided by this Court and the Federal Shariat Court. Hafiz SA. Rahman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants, has however, contended that those weighty questions may not be examined in this appeal but should rather be deferred to a more suitable case. He has not questioned the conviction of the appellants but has prayed that the sentence be appropriately reduced and benefit of section 382- B, Cr.P.C. Be allowed to the appellants. In this connection he has referred to two decisions, Saifur Rahman and another v. The State PLD 1982 F SC 29 and Ghulam Shabbir Shah v. The State 1983 SCMR 942 to contend that in almost identical situations and for similar offences the sentence of five years R.I. Was held to be sufficient and the same would in this case serve the ends of justice.
The learned Additional Advocate-General could point out no distinguishing feature which may justify a sentence of ten years R.I.
2. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the judgments referred to, this appeal is partly allowed against sentence of rigorous imprisonment alone which is reduced from ten years to five years affording to the appellants the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. As well. In other respects the order of conviction and sentence remains intact.