GULZAR alias CARA and another vs THE STATE
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a petition for leave to appeal, which was granted solely to consider the question of sentence. The appellants had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The appellants contended that the sentence awarded was excessive under the circumstances of the case, relying on relevant precedent. The Supreme Court accepted the submission, holding that a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to seven years while keeping the other sentences, including the fine and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, intact.
- Whether a sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 can be reduced by the Supreme Court if deemed excessive under the circumstances?
- What constitutes an appropriate and just sentence for an offence under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when mitigating circumstances are considered?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 20, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
MUHAMMAD TAQI USMANI, J.---Leave in this case was granted MAULANA only to consider the question of sentence. The appellants namely, Gulzar alias Gara and Zahid Nawaz were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura under section 392, P.P.C. Read with section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Hadood Ordinance), 1979 and were sentenced to 10 years R.I. Plus a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default 2 years' R.I. Each. The amount of fine if recovered was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Both of them were also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the sentence given in the circumstances of this case was excessive. He relied on the case of Sajjad Ahmed v. The State (1992 SCMR 408), decided by the Supreme Appellate Court.
3. We are inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel and we feel that in the circumstances of this case the sentence of 7 years' R.I. Shall meet the ends of justice, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to 7 years' R.I. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. However, other sentences awarded to him shall remain intact. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sentence reduced.