ASGHAR vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, for which he was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appellant was apprehended alongside other accused persons, leading to two separate criminal cases based on identical prosecution witnesses and evidence. While the trial court acquitted the appellant in the first case (Crime No. 83 of 2001), it convicted him in the present case. The appellant sought relief based on the inconsistency of these judgments and mitigating circumstances. The High Court, noting that the appellant had already served approximately two years in custody as an undertrial and post-conviction prisoner, exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. Furthermore, the court reduced the fine from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000, stipulating that in default of payment, the appellant must serve an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment. The judgment emphasizes the court's authority to adjust sentences based on mitigating factors and the specific duration of incarceration already served.
- Can a court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on mitigating circumstances?
- Is a trial court's conviction sustainable when it acquitted the same accused on the same set of evidence in a related case?
- Section 13(d), Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 402, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 399, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 265-H(i), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The present appeal impugns conviction judgment recorded by II-Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur in Sessions Case No,406 of 2001, State versus Asghar, convicting the present appellant Asghar for an offence punishable under section 13(d) of Arms Ordinance to undergo R.I. For seven
(7) years and fine Rs,50,000 and in lieu thereof further R.I. Of one year. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the appellant. It appears that the appellant was apprehended along with other accused persons from Nangi Laro, Kandhkot Shikarpur Road on 9-7-2001, by the police party while on patrol duty in their Mobile No,5607. From the search of appellant it is alleged that unlicensed K.K. Was recovered from his possession on the basis of which two criminal cases were registered, one being Crime No,83 of 2001 for an offence punishable under sections 402 and 399, P.P.C. And other being subject-matter of instant appeal. Same set of witnesses and evidence was relied upon by the prosecution in support of their case. It appears that learned trial Court on the same set of witnesses, recorded acquittal of the appellant in Crime No,83 of 2001 under sections 265-H(i), Cr.P.C. Vide acquittal judgment dated 12-8-2003 against which judgment, it is not disputed no appeal has been preferred. On same set of evidence however, the learned trial Court convicted the present appellant to undergo R.I. For seven (7) years and fine of Rs,50,000 as recorded above.
2. ' Mr. Bhutto learned State Counsel contends that contention urged are mitigating circumstances that may entitle the petitioner for some remission in the sentence.
3. ' Mr. Vishno counsel for appellant concedes such proosal.
4. ' In view of the above mitigating circumstances and foregoing pp reasons since the alicant has remained behind the bars for almost ten months as UTP and since date of impugned judgment dated 12-8-2003, i,e, more than one year, in all he has served almost two years. Maximum punishment is seven years for an offence under sections 3/4, Arms Ordinance. Under circumstances the sentence is reduced what has already undergone. Further fine is reduced from Rs,50,000 to Rs,25,000 and in lieu of fine of further R.I. For six months. On payment of fine and or serving out sentence in lieu of fine as the case may be appellant may be released if not required in any other case.