Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD HANIF VS Respondent: STATE
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Abdul Hameed Dogar, Muhammad Roshan Essani Title: MUHAMMAD HANIF vs STATE Case No.: Criminal Appeal No,69 of 1999 Date of Judgment:1999-10-20 Reported As: 2000 P Cr. L J 1146 Result: Order accordingly
Judgment ORDER At the very outset the learned counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal and withdraws the same, but only requests that the sentences awarded to the appellant be ordered to run concurrently, to which the learned A.A.-G. Has no objection. Accordingly Special Anti-Terrorism Appeal No,69 of 1999 stands dismissed as withdrawn. In this case the appellant has been convicted on two counts, viz, under section 302(b), P.P.C. With imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,1,00,000 and in case of default whereof to undergo further R.I. For two years and on the second count he was convicted under section 395, P.P.C. And was sentenced to suffer R.I. For 10 years with fine of Rs,50,000 and in case of default to suffer further R.I. For one year. Since murder has taken place while committing dacoity, as such the appellant should have been convicted and sentenced under section 395, P.P.C. Instead of section 396, P.P.C. Separately to the charge of murder. Accordingly while maintaining the conviction and sentence under section 302(b), P.P.C. As mentioned above, we amend the punishment from section 395,. P.P.C. To section 396, P.P.C. And convict and sentence the appellant to 10 years' R.I. And fine of Rs,50,000 and in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For six months. The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., however, is also extended to the appellant towards computation of his sentence.