کوئی بھی پولیس آفیسر اپنے مخبر کی معلومات عدالت کو د ینے کا پابند نہیں ہے
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 4‑‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.8‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑ Prosecution under Art.8 of Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984 was not bound to disclose the source of information as to the commission of the offence‑‑‑Report of Chemical Examiner about the recovered narcotics was positive and non- production of the case property in the Court having not been challenged at the time of trial for having caused prejudice to the accused had not vitiated the proceedings‑‑‑No enmity or malice having been alleged or proved against the police witnesses, their testimony was as good as that of any other witness‑‑ Discrepancy in prosecution evidence being minor in nature did not dislodge the recovery of narcotics‑‑‑Conviction of accused was upheld in circumstances‑‑ Accused were neither previous convicts nor they appeared to be desperate, dangerous or hardened criminals and one of them being 18 years old, sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to them by Trial Court was reduced to 15 years' R.I. each.
Mansoob Ali Qureshi for Appellants. Shaukat Hussain Zubaidi. A.‑G.. Sindh for the State.
Date of hearing: 13th March. 1998.
‑‑‑‑Art. 4‑‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.8‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑ Prosecution under Art.8 of Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984 was not bound to disclose the source of information as to the commission of the offence‑‑‑Report of Chemical Examiner about the recovered narcotics was positive and non- production of the case property in the Court having not been challenged at the time of trial for having caused prejudice to the accused had not vitiated the proceedings‑‑‑No enmity or malice having been alleged or proved against the police witnesses, their testimony was as good as that of any other witness‑‑ Discrepancy in prosecution evidence being minor in nature did not dislodge the recovery of narcotics‑‑‑Conviction of accused was upheld in circumstances‑‑ Accused were neither previous convicts nor they appeared to be desperate, dangerous or hardened criminals and one of them being 18 years old, sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to them by Trial Court was reduced to 15 years' R.I. each.
Mansoob Ali Qureshi for Appellants. Shaukat Hussain Zubaidi. A.‑G.. Sindh for the State.
Date of hearing: 13th March. 1998.
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 4‑‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.8‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑ Prosecution under Art.8 of Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984 was not bound to disclose the source of information as to the commission of the offence‑‑‑Report of Chemical Examiner about the recovered narcotics was positive and non- production of the case property in the Court having not been challenged at the time of trial for having caused prejudice to the accused had not vitiated the proceedings‑‑‑No enmity or malice having been alleged or proved against the police witnesses, their testimony was as good as that of any other witness‑‑ Discrepancy in prosecution evidence being minor in nature did not dislodge the recovery of narcotics‑‑‑Conviction of accused was upheld in circumstances‑‑ Accused were neither previous convicts nor they appeared to be desperate, dangerous or hardened criminals and one of them being 18 years old, sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to them by Trial Court was reduced to 15 years' R.I. each.
Mansoob Ali Qureshi for Appellants. Shaukat Hussain Zubaidi. A.‑G.. Sindh for the State.
Date of hearing: 13th March. 1998.
AKMAL NAWAZ VS THE STATE1998 P Cr. L J 1821[Federal Shariat Court]Before Abdul Waheed Siddiqui, and Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, JJAKMAL NAWAZ and another‑‑‑Appellants ActVersusTHE STATE‑‑‑RespondentCriminal Appeal No.57/K of 1995, decided on 13/03/1998.
‑‑‑‑Art. 4‑‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.8‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑ Prosecution under Art.8 of Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984 was not bound to disclose the source of information as to the commission of the offence‑‑‑Report of Chemical Examiner about the recovered narcotics was positive and non- production of the case property in the Court having not been challenged at the time of trial for having caused prejudice to the accused had not vitiated the proceedings‑‑‑No enmity or malice having been alleged or proved against the police witnesses, their testimony was as good as that of any other witness‑‑ Discrepancy in prosecution evidence being minor in nature did not dislodge the recovery of narcotics‑‑‑Conviction of accused was upheld in circumstances‑‑ Accused were neither previous convicts nor they appeared to be desperate, dangerous or hardened criminals and one of them being 18 years old, sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to them by Trial Court was reduced to 15 years' R.I. each.
Mansoob Ali Qureshi for Appellants. Shaukat Hussain Zubaidi. A.‑G.. Sindh for the State.
Date of hearing: 13th March. 1998.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL WAHEED SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑ This appeal is directed against a judgment delivered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Karachi West on 30‑10‑1995 whereby ;the appellants have been convicted under Article 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with whipping of 15 stripes each and also to pay fine of Rs. two hundred thousand (two lac) each, in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for three years each. Benefit of section 382‑B. Cr.P.C. has also been extended.
2. Choudhry Muhammad Rafiq (P.W.3) S.H.O./S.‑I. Police Station Orangi Town, Karachi West lodged an F.I.R. on 9‑4‑1993 at 19‑30 hours wherein he alleged that on the said date at about 17‑00 hours he was in the search for those who were dealers of intoxicants in his area and was accompanied by other police personnel as well as already arrested accused Tayyab in case F.I.R. No.81 of 1983 under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. They found at Manghopir Road No.2 near electric pole No.56, a yellow Taxi No.PL‑9423 and four persons were bringing out plastic bags from the rear seat and diggi of the taxi. On finding Government mobile approaching them, hurriedly they closed the diggi and doors of the taxi and escaped towards Manghopir. However, two of the culprits were caught hold and they are the present appellants. The names of absconding accused were disclosed by the arrested appellants. From the possession of appellants an iron box was recovered which contained 14 plastic bags with one Kg. of heroin in each bag totalling 14 Kgs. of heroin. Five gunny bags filled with opium were also recovered which was 150 Kgs. As per procedure, samples of contrabands were prepared and sent to the Chemical Examiner.
Both the appellants were charged under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the said order, to which they did not plead guilty. To prove its case, prosecution examined three witnesses. Shaukat Hayat (P.W.1) A.S.‑I. Police Station Orangi Town has proved that already arrested accused Tayyab had disclosed during interrogation that a gang was selling drugs in a yellow taxi. He bas also proved being a member of the raiding party and the recovery of incriminating articles from the appellants. Ch. Azim Arain (P.W.2) Editor of Daily Shoorat, Karachi is one of the Mashirs of arrest and recovery and has proved the occurrence. Muhammad Rafique (P.W.3) S.H.O. is the complainant and Investigating Officer of the case. He has proved the occurrence and the steps of investigation taken by him.
Appellant Akmal Nawaz has produced Ghulam Habib (D.W.1) in his defence. He deposed that Akmal Nawaz worked as a mechanic in his shop. On the fateful day he had sent Akmal Nawaz to Banaras Colony for the purposes of welding a vehicle. Later on he was informed that Akmal was taken away by police.
Appellant Jan Muhammad has examined Siddique Awan (D.W.2) in his defence. This witness has deposed that appellant Jan Muhammad used to sit at his shop of sweet meet. On the fateful day he was sitting on his shop at about 4 or 4‑30 p.m. that a police van came, the appellant was called and made to sit in the van. Owner of the sweet meet shop was also taken and beaten. In the evening he returned and informed that appellant Jan Muhammad was involved in a case of heroin.
3. We have heard the counsel for appellants and Advocate‑General for Sindh for State. The counsel for appellants has contended that Tayyab, the informer has not been examined which is fatal for prosecution; that in the charge names of absconding co‑accused have been omitted; that procedure under sections 87, 88 and 512, Cr.P.C. has not been completed before charging the present appellants; that the case property was not produced in the Trial Court; that there is only one independent Mashir of recovery i.e. P.W.2 whereas statutory requirement is that of a minimum of two under section 103, Cr.P.C., that the only independent witness P.W.2 is in material conflict which other P.W.s., that P.W.3 is mentioning Charas as one of the recovered narcotics whereas it has not been the case of prosecution; that the taxi from which contrabands were unloaded was not produced in the Trial Court although it was already seized; that in statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. specific questions have not been raised which has prejudiced the appellant; that reliance has been placed on, inter alia, PLD 1978 SC 1, 1989 PCr.L1 601, 1993 SCMR 498 and that the appellants are not previous convicts and have never been involved in any criminal case previously. Consequently, there are mitigating circumstances for seduction in sentence. The learned Advocate‑General has supported the judgment but leas conceded to the reduction in the sentence.
4. So far as the non‑production of already arrested accused in a different case namely Tayyab is concerned, he was simply informer about the unlawful activities of the present appellants and their absconding co‑accused. In the present case prosecution has disclosed the name of the informer, but under the provisions of Article 8 of the Qatiun‑e‑Shahadat Order, 1984 is not bound even to disclose the source of information. The said Article reads as under:‑‑
"8.Information as to commission of offence‑‑‑ No Magistrate or Police Officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no Revenue officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue."
Consequently this contention is rejected as misconceived.
5. The contention that the charge does not contain the names of the absconding co‑accused and it is in violation of the provisions of section 222(1), Cr.P.C. is repelled under the provisions of section 225, Cr.P.C. as we do not find that the omission of the names of absconding accused has misled the appellants or it has occasioned a failure of justice. Section 225, Cr.P.C. reads as under:‑‑
"225 Effect of Errors.‑‑‑ No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice."
6.The contention that the appellants were charged before completing the procedure as laid down in sections 87, 88 and 512, Cr.P.C. against the absconding accused is again misconceived as in all the mentioned three sections of Cr.P.C. it is left to the discretion of the Court to issue proclamation for absconding persons and to attach their properties or not. The usage of the word "may" in all the three sections clarifies the intention of the Legislature to leave the matter to the judicial discretion of the Court. Since no mandate has been violated, therefore, this contention is repelled.
7. The contention that the case property and the seized tax involved in the carriage of narcotics were not produced in the Court, no such contention was raised at the time of the trial that such conduct was prejudicing the appellants. No application seems to have been moved for the production of the seized taxi and the recovered narcotics. Report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.14) is positive. Therefore, we find that the non‑production of the said incriminating material has not vitiated the proceedings.
8. The contention that only one independent witness of recovery namely Ch. Azeem Arain (P.W.2) has been examined and it violates provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. By now it stands established through various rulings of the superior Courts that the evidence of the personnel of the law enforcing agencies is as good as any other citizen of Pakistan provided it is free from mala fides, animus etc. In the present case no enmity or malice has been alleged or proved against the police witnesses. Consequently, this contention has no force and is rejected as such.
9. The contention that Ch. Azeem Arain (P.W.2) is in material conflict with other witnesses is based on the following pieces of deposition: ‑‑
(i)Shaukat Hayat (P.W.1) has deposed; From the yellow taxi four persons were unloading iron box and plastic Borries, seeing the police mobile two persons escaped in, the taxi leaving the unloaded stuff there. There were five plastic Borries and each Borry contained eight packets of heroin.
Ch. Azeem Arain (P.W.2) is deposing:
One of the iron box fell down from the taxi after passing some distance as one of the door of the taxi was opened. The police opened the Borries eight in number and recovered opium. Again says that the total Borries were in five in numbers and in each Borry there were eight (8) Thellies. Those Thellies were opened and recovered opium from those Thellies. Thereafter, that iron box was opened and recovered fourteen Thellies containing heroin powder. Each Thelli contained one kilo' heroin powder, total fourteen kilos.
This discrepancy is minor in nature and does not dislodge the version of the prosecution regarding recovery of the narcotics as such.
10. It has been contended that Muhammad Rafique (P.W.3) has deposed during examination‑in‑chief as
under:‑‑
"On checking the iron box was found containing 14 bags on which there was white clothes with a sealed Itifaq No.77 each of the bag was found to contain heroin and its weight was also each Thelli 1 kilogram totalling 14 kilograms. 5 gunny bags when checked they containing each one 8 Thellies and one Thelli when weighed its weight was 3 kilo 875 grams, totalling 150 kilograms. Samples were connected from both items the sample of heroin of about half killo and Charas taken out. Open seal on the spot in same gunny bag and heroin was separately in 14 killos in those Thellies."
It appears that the word "Charas" used in this piece of deposition is a typographical mistake otherwise it is not the case of the prosecution that Charas was recovered. Had it been so, its weight should have appeared in the F.I.R. and memo of recovery and samples should have appeared in the report of Chemical Examiner. Throughout the evidence nowhere else Charas appears. Consequently, we consider this word is a typing mistake and ignore it.
11. The contention that specific questions have not been raised in statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. is based on the misconception that a question about escaped taxi should have been asked. Since non‑raising of such a question has not prejudiced the appellants and miscarriage of justice in this respect is not in view, therefore, this contention is repelled.
12. Now comes the question of the reduction in sentence. Law has provided maximum punishment of life imprisonment i.e. 25 years in such cases. Maximum punishment is normally awarded in cases which are in aggrivated form and in which some hardened, desperate, dangerous or previous convicts are involved. Then the question of numbers is also involved. In the present case, from two appellants, 14 Kgs. of heroin and 150 Kgs. of opium are recovered. They have been punished with 25 years' R.I. each. Had the number of Kgs. of heroin been 1400 or 14000 and that of opium 1500 or 15000, same punishment would have been the fate of the accused. The appellants are neither previous convicts nor are they appearing to be desperate, dangerous or hardened criminals. From the records age of appellant Akmal Nawaz appears to be 18 years. In view of these factors and also the conceding position of the learned Advocate‑General, while maintaining the conviction, the sentences of both the appellants are reduced to 15 years R.I. The sentence of whipping is remitted under the provisions of proviso to section 3 of the Abolition of the Punishment of Whipping Act, 1996 (Act VII of 1996). Benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. is extended. The impugned judgment is upheld with such modification and appeal is dismissed.
N.H.Q./1192/FSCSentence reduced.
ABDUL WAHEED SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑ This appeal is directed against a judgment delivered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Karachi West on 30‑10‑1995 whereby ;the appellants have been convicted under Article 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with whipping of 15 stripes each and also to pay fine of Rs. two hundred thousand (two lac) each, in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for three years each. Benefit of section 382‑B. Cr.P.C. has also been extended.
2. Choudhry Muhammad Rafiq (P.W.3) S.H.O./S.‑I. Police Station Orangi Town, Karachi West lodged an F.I.R. on 9‑4‑1993 at 19‑30 hours wherein he alleged that on the said date at about 17‑00 hours he was in the search for those who were dealers of intoxicants in his area and was accompanied by other police personnel as well as already arrested accused Tayyab in case F.I.R. No.81 of 1983 under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. They found at Manghopir Road No.2 near electric pole No.56, a yellow Taxi No.PL‑9423 and four persons were bringing out plastic bags from the rear seat and diggi of the taxi. On finding Government mobile approaching them, hurriedly they closed the diggi and doors of the taxi and escaped towards Manghopir. However, two of the culprits were caught hold and they are the present appellants. The names of absconding accused were disclosed by the arrested appellants. From the possession of appellants an iron box was recovered which contained 14 plastic bags with one Kg. of heroin in each bag totalling 14 Kgs. of heroin. Five gunny bags filled with opium were also recovered which was 150 Kgs. As per procedure, samples of contrabands were prepared and sent to the Chemical Examiner.
Both the appellants were charged under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the said order, to which they did not plead guilty. To prove its case, prosecution examined three witnesses. Shaukat Hayat (P.W.1) A.S.‑I. Police Station Orangi Town has proved that already arrested accused Tayyab had disclosed during interrogation that a gang was selling drugs in a yellow taxi. He bas also proved being a member of the raiding party and the recovery of incriminating articles from the appellants. Ch. Azim Arain (P.W.2) Editor of Daily Shoorat, Karachi is one of the Mashirs of arrest and recovery and has proved the occurrence. Muhammad Rafique (P.W.3) S.H.O. is the complainant and Investigating Officer of the case. He has proved the occurrence and the steps of investigation taken by him.
Appellant Akmal Nawaz has produced Ghulam Habib (D.W.1) in his defence. He deposed that Akmal Nawaz worked as a mechanic in his shop. On the fateful day he had sent Akmal Nawaz to Banaras Colony for the purposes of welding a vehicle. Later on he was informed that Akmal was taken away by police.
Appellant Jan Muhammad has examined Siddique Awan (D.W.2) in his defence. This witness has deposed that appellant Jan Muhammad used to sit at his shop of sweet meet. On the fateful day he was sitting on his shop at about 4 or 4‑30 p.m. that a police van came, the appellant was called and made to sit in the van. Owner of the sweet meet shop was also taken and beaten. In the evening he returned and informed that appellant Jan Muhammad was involved in a case of heroin.
3. We have heard the counsel for appellants and Advocate‑General for Sindh for State. The counsel for appellants has contended that Tayyab, the informer has not been examined which is fatal for prosecution; that in the charge names of absconding co‑accused have been omitted; that procedure under sections 87, 88 and 512, Cr.P.C. has not been completed before charging the present appellants; that the case property was not produced in the Trial Court; that there is only one independent Mashir of recovery i.e. P.W.2 whereas statutory requirement is that of a minimum of two under section 103, Cr.P.C., that the only independent witness P.W.2 is in material conflict which other P.W.s., that P.W.3 is mentioning Charas as one of the recovered narcotics whereas it has not been the case of prosecution; that the taxi from which contrabands were unloaded was not produced in the Trial Court although it was already seized; that in statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. specific questions have not been raised which has prejudiced the appellant; that reliance has been placed on, inter alia, PLD 1978 SC 1, 1989 PCr.L1 601, 1993 SCMR 498 and that the appellants are not previous convicts and have never been involved in any criminal case previously. Consequently, there are mitigating circumstances for seduction in sentence. The learned Advocate‑General has supported the judgment but leas conceded to the reduction in the sentence.
4. So far as the non‑production of already arrested accused in a different case namely Tayyab is concerned, he was simply informer about the unlawful activities of the present appellants and their absconding co‑accused. In the present case prosecution has disclosed the name of the informer, but under the provisions of Article 8 of the Qatiun‑e‑Shahadat Order, 1984 is not bound even to disclose the source of information. The said Article reads as under:‑‑
"8.Information as to commission of offence‑‑‑ No Magistrate or Police Officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no Revenue officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue."
Consequently this contention is rejected as misconceived.
5. The contention that the charge does not contain the names of the absconding co‑accused and it is in violation of the provisions of section 222(1), Cr.P.C. is repelled under the provisions of section 225, Cr.P.C. as we do not find that the omission of the names of absconding accused has misled the appellants or it has occasioned a failure of justice. Section 225, Cr.P.C. reads as under:‑‑
"225 Effect of Errors.‑‑‑ No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice."
6.The contention that the appellants were charged before completing the procedure as laid down in sections 87, 88 and 512, Cr.P.C. against the absconding accused is again misconceived as in all the mentioned three sections of Cr.P.C. it is left to the discretion of the Court to issue proclamation for absconding persons and to attach their properties or not. The usage of the word "may" in all the three sections clarifies the intention of the Legislature to leave the matter to the judicial discretion of the Court. Since no mandate has been violated, therefore, this contention is repelled.
7. The contention that the case property and the seized tax involved in the carriage of narcotics were not produced in the Court, no such contention was raised at the time of the trial that such conduct was prejudicing the appellants. No application seems to have been moved for the production of the seized taxi and the recovered narcotics. Report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.14) is positive. Therefore, we find that the non‑production of the said incriminating material has not vitiated the proceedings.
8. The contention that only one independent witness of recovery namely Ch. Azeem Arain (P.W.2) has been examined and it violates provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. By now it stands established through various rulings of the superior Courts that the evidence of the personnel of the law enforcing agencies is as good as any other citizen of Pakistan provided it is free from mala fides, animus etc. In the present case no enmity or malice has been alleged or proved against the police witnesses. Consequently, this contention has no force and is rejected as such.
9. The contention that Ch. Azeem Arain (P.W.2) is in material conflict with other witnesses is based on the following pieces of deposition: ‑‑
(i)Shaukat Hayat (P.W.1) has deposed; From the yellow taxi four persons were unloading iron box and plastic Borries, seeing the police mobile two persons escaped in, the taxi leaving the unloaded stuff there. There were five plastic Borries and each Borry contained eight packets of heroin.
Ch. Azeem Arain (P.W.2) is deposing:
One of the iron box fell down from the taxi after passing some distance as one of the door of the taxi was opened. The police opened the Borries eight in number and recovered opium. Again says that the total Borries were in five in numbers and in each Borry there were eight (8) Thellies. Those Thellies were opened and recovered opium from those Thellies. Thereafter, that iron box was opened and recovered fourteen Thellies containing heroin powder. Each Thelli contained one kilo' heroin powder, total fourteen kilos.
This discrepancy is minor in nature and does not dislodge the version of the prosecution regarding recovery of the narcotics as such.
10. It has been contended that Muhammad Rafique (P.W.3) has deposed during examination‑in‑chief as
under:‑‑
"On checking the iron box was found containing 14 bags on which there was white clothes with a sealed Itifaq No.77 each of the bag was found to contain heroin and its weight was also each Thelli 1 kilogram totalling 14 kilograms. 5 gunny bags when checked they containing each one 8 Thellies and one Thelli when weighed its weight was 3 kilo 875 grams, totalling 150 kilograms. Samples were connected from both items the sample of heroin of about half killo and Charas taken out. Open seal on the spot in same gunny bag and heroin was separately in 14 killos in those Thellies."
It appears that the word "Charas" used in this piece of deposition is a typographical mistake otherwise it is not the case of the prosecution that Charas was recovered. Had it been so, its weight should have appeared in the F.I.R. and memo of recovery and samples should have appeared in the report of Chemical Examiner. Throughout the evidence nowhere else Charas appears. Consequently, we consider this word is a typing mistake and ignore it.
11. The contention that specific questions have not been raised in statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. is based on the misconception that a question about escaped taxi should have been asked. Since non‑raising of such a question has not prejudiced the appellants and miscarriage of justice in this respect is not in view, therefore, this contention is repelled.
12. Now comes the question of the reduction in sentence. Law has provided maximum punishment of life imprisonment i.e. 25 years in such cases. Maximum punishment is normally awarded in cases which are in aggrivated form and in which some hardened, desperate, dangerous or previous convicts are involved. Then the question of numbers is also involved. In the present case, from two appellants, 14 Kgs. of heroin and 150 Kgs. of opium are recovered. They have been punished with 25 years' R.I. each. Had the number of Kgs. of heroin been 1400 or 14000 and that of opium 1500 or 15000, same punishment would have been the fate of the accused. The appellants are neither previous convicts nor are they appearing to be desperate, dangerous or hardened criminals. From the records age of appellant Akmal Nawaz appears to be 18 years. In view of these factors and also the conceding position of the learned Advocate‑General, while maintaining the conviction, the sentences of both the appellants are reduced to 15 years R.I. The sentence of whipping is remitted under the provisions of proviso to section 3 of the Abolition of the Punishment of Whipping Act, 1996 (Act VII of 1996). Benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. is extended. The impugned judgment is upheld with such modification and appeal is dismissed.
N.H.Q./1192/FSCSentence reduced.
0 Comments