MUHAMMAD HANIF vs STATE
This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence. At the outset, counsel for the appellant withdrew the appeal but requested that the sentences awarded on separate counts be ordered to run concurrently, a request to which the State had no objection. The core legal issue involved the proper application of sentencing provisions where a murder occurred during the commission of a dacoity. The Court held that the appellant should have been convicted and sentenced under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which specifically addresses dacoity with murder, rather than being sentenced separately under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity and Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction under Section 302(b) but amended the conviction for the dacoity-related offense to Section 396. The Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently and extended the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellant for sentence computation.
- Can a court order sentences for separate offenses to run concurrently upon request?
- Is it appropriate to convict an accused under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a murder occurs during the commission of a dacoity?
- Does the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to the computation of a sentence in a dacoity-murder case?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. At the very outset the learned counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal and withdraws the same, but only requests that the sentences awarded to the appellant be ordered to run concurrently, to which the learned A.A.-G. Has no objection.
2. Accordingly Special Anti-Terrorism Appeal No,69 of 1999 stands dismissed as withdrawn.
3. In this case the appellant has been convicted on two counts, viz, under section 302(b), P.P.C. With imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,1,00,000 and in case of default whereof to undergo further R.I.
4. For two years and on the second count he was convicted under section 395, P.P.C. And was sentenced to suffer R.I. For 10 years with fine of Rs,50,000 and in case of default to suffer further R.I.
5. For one year.
6. Since murder has taken place while committing dacoity, as such the appellant should have been convicted and sentenced under section 395, P.P.C. Instead of section 396, P.P.C. Separately to the charge of murder.
7. Accordingly while maintaining the conviction and sentence under section 302(b), P.P.C. As mentioned above, we amend the punishment from section 395,. P.P.C. To section 396, P.P.C. And convict and sentence the appellant to 10 years' R.I. And fine of Rs,50,000 and in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For six months.
8. The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., however, is also extended to the appellant towards computation of his sentence.