IKRAM ELLAHI and another vs THE STATE and another
This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of four appellants for robbery-related offences. The appellants, having initially challenged their convictions, subsequently withdrew their appeals on merits through counsel, requesting only a reduction in sentence. The core legal question before the Court was whether the evidence supported a conviction under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (dishonestly receiving stolen property in the commission of dacoity) or if the offence was more appropriately classified under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (dishonestly receiving stolen property). Upon reviewing the evidence, which established that the appellants were found in possession of stolen gold bangles, the Court found the offence under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to be proven. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but altered the legal classification from Section 412 to Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence accordingly. The judgment affirms that where evidence only establishes the possession of stolen property without proving the elements of dacoity, the conviction must be modified to the lesser offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property.
- Whether a conviction under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be altered to Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the evidence only proves possession of stolen property?
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence upon the request of the appellant's counsel when the appeal on merits is not pressed?
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' The learned counsel for the four appellants namely Humair Ahmed Abbasi, Ishtiaq Ahmed, Rahat Ali and Ikram Elahi in the above appeals argued the matter to a certain extent and thereafter both the learned counsel, Mr. Shahadat Awan and Syed Azmat Shah made statements in Court that they did not press their respective appeals on behalf of their clients against their conviction but they prayed that severity of the sentence may be considered and reduced to justifiable extent to meet the ends of justice.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State agreed to the request of the learned counsel for the appellants and pleaded that in fact the facts of the case warranted that the appellants be sentenced for the offence under section 411, P.P.C. And that conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offence under section 412, P.P.C. May be altered to one under section 411, P.P.C.
3. I have given due consideration to the requests of the learned counsel for the appellants and the State Counsel. I have also gone through the record of the case with the help of the learned counsel for the appellants who read out the evidence of all the witnesses in the Court and I have also perused the judgment of the trial Court and gone through the police papers.
4. The relevant facts of the case in short are to the effect that on 12-6-1996 in the morning hours at about 8-15 a.m. The culprits duly armed had entered the house of complainant Fazal Karim and committed robbery of cash, prize bonds and gold ornaments. The evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court was to the effect that on filing of the report the police had investigated the case and arrested the accused and that four gold bangles among the other articles were recovered from the possession of the appellants. The prosecution was in the manner that each one of the accused had produced one robbed bangle.
5. During the trial in cross-examination to the witnesses and in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. The accused/appellants had claimed the bangles to be their property. Thus, the proof available before the trial Court was the recovery of the said bangles, one each from the possession of the appellants which were identified by the P.Ws. To be their stolen property. Thus, offence under section 411, P.P.C. Stood proved against the appellants.
6. Accepting the statements of the learned counsel for the appellants not pressing the appeals on merits, I find that the appellants are liable to be sentenced for offence under section 411, P.P.C. And consequently, the sentence awarded by the trial Court under section 412, P.P.C. Is altered to read one under section 411, P.P.C. And the appellants are sentenced for the offence under section 411, P.P.C. To a period of three years' R.I. They are also ordered to pay fine of Rs,2,000 each, in default whereof they shall further undergo S.I. For six months each. The result is that the appeals are dismissed with the modification in the sentence as above. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall remain available to the appellants.
Sentence reduced.