ALLAY YAR alias MUHAMMAD YAR and anothers vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition arose from the conviction of the petitioners under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident registered under F.I.R. No. 193 of 1997. The trial court initially convicted the petitioners under Sections 447 and 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. On appeal, the Sessions Judge maintained the conviction under Section 354 but set aside the conviction under Section 447, while reducing the sentence for the former. The petitioners did not challenge the conviction itself but sought a reduction in the sentence, citing the non-heinous nature of the offence, their lack of prior criminal history, and the fact that they had already served approximately four months of imprisonment. The High Court, upon reviewing the record, found no illegality or misappreciation of evidence in the lower courts' findings. However, considering the petitioners' clean criminal record, the civil nature of the underlying dispute, and the time already served, the Court held that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, ordering their immediate release.
- Can a High Court reduce a criminal sentence to the period already undergone based on the lack of prior criminal history?
- Is a conviction under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the underlying civil litigation context is considered for sentencing purposes?
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' The petitioners were tried in case F.I.R. No,193 of 1997, under sections 447/48 and 354, P.P.C.
2. Registered at Police Station, Mandi Ahmed Abad, Okara by learned trial Court, Depalpur. Vide judgment dated 9-5-2002, they were convicted and sentenced under section 447, P.P.C. To undergo 3 months' R.I. Each. They were also convicted and sentenced under section 354, P.P.C. To one year R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 each. The petitioners filed an appeal against the said judgment which was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Depalpur vide a judgment dated 30-10-2002 and while maintaining the conviction the sentence was reduced from one year R.I. To six months'
3. R.I. Under section 354, P.P.C. But conviction under section 447, P.P.C. Was set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not challenge the conviction recorded against the petitioners.
4. However, he has prayed that the offence was not heinous and the petitioners have been acquitted in the main offence; that both the petitioners are not previous convicts and have no criminal history. Therefore, the sentence be reduced adequately. It has been further stated that the petitioners have already undergone about four months.
5. ' The petition has been opposed vehemently by the learned counsel for the State.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. ' Having gone through the impugned judgment. I do not find any illegality, infirmity or misappreciation of evidence in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners is justified in not challenging the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and maintained by learned Appellate Court. So far as the sentence is concerned, the petitioners were convicted in the main charge and have been sentenced only under section 354, P.P.C. They have no previous criminal history and the occurrence took place due to civil litigation. They have already undergone the sentence for a period of four months. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction, I reduce the sentence having been already undergone by the petitioners which will meet the ends of justice. If not required in any other criminal case they be released immediately.