ARID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges a High Court judgment that maintained the appellant's sentence of life imprisonment, despite having reduced the sentences of his co-accused to seven years rigorous imprisonment for the same offense. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to the same sentencing relief as his co-accused, given that their cases were factually similar. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the appellant's case was indistinguishable from that of the co-accused, and therefore, maintaining a harsher sentence constituted unjust discrimination. The Court held that parity in sentencing must be maintained among co-accused when the circumstances of their involvement are identical. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in part, maintaining the conviction under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reducing the appellant's sentence to seven years rigorous imprisonment and reducing the fine to Rs. 25,000. The Court further directed that the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be extended to the appellant.
- Whether a co-accused is entitled to the same reduction in sentence as other co-accused when the facts and circumstances of the case are identical?
- Can a court maintain a sentence of life imprisonment for one accused while reducing the sentence of co-accused involved in the same offense to seven years?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, ACTG. C.J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against judgment dated 24-5-1999 of High Court of Sindh whereby appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. It appears from the record that appellant was convicted and sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment and fine of Rs,4,00,000 or in default to undergo six months R.I. The co-accused were also convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,4,00,000 or in default of undergo six months R.I. Alongwith forfeiture of property. In appeal filed by said co-accused the High Court reduced their sentence from life imprisonment to seven years with reduction of fine to Rs,25,000 and in default to further undergo six months R.I. However, the sentence of the appellant was maintained through impugned judgment against which this appeal is directed.
3. Learned counsel for appellant sabmitted that case of the appellant was similar to that of other accused persons whose sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to seven years R.I., therefore, he has been discriminated.
4. We have gone through the record and find that the case of present appellant was also similar to those co-accused, therefore, no discrimination could have been made in respect of award of sentence.
5. For the foregoing reasons this appeal is partly accepted. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 365, P.P.C. We reduce the sentence of life imprisonment to 7 years R.I. And fine of Rs,4,00,000 is also reduced to Rs,25,000 or in default to undergo six months R.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall also be given to the appellant and if the appellant has already undergone the reduced, sentence he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
6. The show-cause notice issued to the other convicts through order dated 28-11-2001 is hereby, discharged. If the said convicts have already undergone the sentence awarded by the High Court, they shall also be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Sentence reduced.