Rab Nawaz vs The State
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, Rab Nawaz, for causing injuries resulting in the amputation of the complainant's leg, an offence under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had originally sentenced the appellant to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and imposed Arsh. Upon appeal, the appellant's counsel did not contest the conviction on merits, focusing instead on the quantum of sentence. The High Court reviewed the evidence, noting the complainant's testimony was corroborated by medical evidence, and upheld the conviction. However, regarding the sentence, the Court considered the appellant's prolonged incarceration of over six years, the absence of prior enmity, and the fact that the incident arose from a sudden altercation over water. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already served, while maintaining the order for Arsh. The judgment affirms that while conviction may be sound based on corroborated evidence, the duration of pre-conviction detention and the circumstances of the offence are critical factors in determining the proportionality of the final sentence.
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already served by the convict?
- Does the absence of previous enmity between parties constitute a mitigating factor for sentencing in cases of physical injury?
- Is a conviction under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the victim's testimony is corroborated by medical evidence?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-R, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.- Rab Nawaz son of Abdul Rahman was sent-up to face trial along with co-accused Haji Mushtaq Ahmad in case FIR No. 99/1996 registered at P.S. City Haroonabad on 15.4.1996 for offences under Sections 324/337/334/34, PPC. After conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 11.5.2001, acquitted co-accused Haji Mushtaq Ahmad, but convicted the appellant for offence under Section 336, PPC and sentenced him thereunder to seven years' R.I. As Tazir. Arsh equivalent to one-half of Diyat under Section 337-R, PPC was also imposed upon the appellant. The Arsh was to be paid to the victim Abdul Hameed PW-1. It was further ordered that the appellant would pay the amount of Arsh in three instalments spreading over a period of three years from the date of judgment. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C, was extended to the appellant.
2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant through jail challenged his conviction and sentence by filing the appeal, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 83/2001. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant engaged learned counsel Mr. M. Shamsher Iqbal Chughtai, Advocate, who represented him.
3. While dictating the judgment, it has been noticed that Rab Nawaz appellant was convicted and sentenced in three cases bearing FIRs Nos. 271/1996, 99/1996 and 279/1996, all registered at P.S. City Haroonabad, District Bahawalnagar. He challenged his convictions and sentences by filing a single appeal through Superintendent, District Jail, Bahawalnagar. The office as mentioned above registered the appeal as Criminal Appeal No. 83/2001. The aforementioned appeal would be treated to be filed against the conviction of the appellant relating to case FIR No. 99/1996 and the same is being decided through this judgment. The office would assign a different number to the appeal relating to case FIR No. 271/1996 and the learned counsel for the appellant would be informed through written notice and through telephone accordingly. As far as the conviction of Rab Nawaz in case FIR No. 279/1996 is concerned, the appeal can only be filed before the Court of Session. Rab Nawaz appellant would be informed accordingly through Superintendent, District jail, Bahawalnagar.
4. Precisely the allegation against the appellant in the Instant case (FIR No. 99/1996) was that he, while armed with a pistol 12-bore, fired at Abdul Hameed complainant PW-1. The i.e hit at the legs of the complainant and subsequently due to the injuries caused by the appellant right leg of the complainant had to be amputated. During trial, the prosecution produced eight witnesses to prove its case.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has, at the very outset, submitted that he would not press this appeal on the merits and would pray for reduction in the sentence.
6. 1 have gone through the entire record of the case and the impugned judgment. The learned counsel has rightly not pressed this appeal on merits, as PW-1, who received the injury, gave a straight forward account of the Occurrence and his testimony was duly corroborated by the statement of Dr. Muhammad Amin who appeared as PW-4. In the circumstances, I maintain the conviction of the appellant under Section 336, PPC. However, quantum of sentence requires a serious thought. It has been noticed that the appellant was arrested in the instant case on 29.11.1996 and had remained in jail throughout, i.e. More than six years. He did not report his shot and was acquitted of the charge under Section 324, PPC. There was no previous enmity between the complainant and the appellant and the occurrence had taken place after an altercation between the parties ever tum of water. Therefore, I reduce the sentence from seven years' R.I. To that already served out by the appellant. The sentence of Arsh is maintained. With the modification in the sentence, this appeal stands dismissed.