Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Respondent: THE STATE
1997 P Cr
1997 P Cr. L J 1331
[Federal Shariat Court]
Before Nasir Aslam Zahid, J
MUHAMMAD ASLAM---Appellant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.35/L of 1995, decided on 6th April, 1995.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 412 & 411---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 163 days in filing of appeal by accused was condoned in view of peculiar circumstances of the case-- Accused and his three co-accused had been convicted by one judgment of the Trial Court---Accused had not filed appeal against his conviction and sentence earlier and the appeals filed by the three co-accused had been disposed of giving them relief in the form of reduction of sentence after converting their conviction from S.412, P.P.C. to SA11, P.P.C.---Case of prosecution against all the four accused including the present accused being identical, present accused was also entitled to the same relief as had been extended to other three co-accused-- Conviction of accused under S.412, P.P.C. was consequently converted to S.411, P.P.C. and his sentence was reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him.
Muhammad Taqi Khan for Appellant.
Abdul Khaliq Khan for the State.
Date of hearing: 6th January, 1995.
JUDGMENT
By judgment, dated 3-7-1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura in Hudood Case No. 13 of 1994, all the 4 accused namely, Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Latif, Manzoor Hussain son of Said Muhammad Virk, Asghar Ali son of Allah Ditta and Said Muhammad son of Fateh Muhammad, were convicted under section 412, P.P.C. and each of them sentenced to R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs.5,000 each and in default in the payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 3 months. All the accused were extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Asghar Ali and Said Muhammad filed Criminal Appeal No.239/L of 1994 and Manzoor Hussain filed Criminal Appeal No.253/L of 1994. By the consolidated judgment, dated 31-1-1995, this Court converted the conviction of the said appellants from 412, P.P.C. to conviction under section 411, P.P.C. and their sentence was altered to the sentence already undergone by them and a further direction was given by the said judgment, dated 31-1-1995 that the said 3 appellants be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
2. The 4th accused, namely, Muhammad Aslam, did not file an appeal earlier against, the impugned judgment of the trial Court but then the present appeal was filed by Muhammad Aslam against the said judgment which was admitted to regular hearing by order, dated 7-3-1995. It was noted in the order, dated 7-3-1995 that the appeal was time-barred by 163 days and the appeal was admitted subject to the point about the limitation. I heard Mr. Muhammad Taqi Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Klialiq Khan, learned counsel, who has appeared for the State.
3. An application has been filed for condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal. According to the application, the appellant been transferred to Kot Lakhpat Jail and there was no one to pursue the case of the appellant except his old mother and she was unable to pursue the case due to poverty and old age. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mst. Sardaran Bibi, mother of the appellant. Apart from the reasons given for condonation of delay, I am of the view that, even otherwise, it is a case where delay should be condoned for the reason that the 4 accused had been convicted by one judgment of the trial Court passed in one case and the appeals filed by the 3 co-accused have been disposed of and they have been given relief in the form of reduction of sentence after converting the conviction from section 412 to section 411, P.P.C. and the case of the prosecution against all the 4 accused including the present appellant is A identical as conceded by the learned counsel for the State and, therefore, it is considered appropriate that the relief which has been given to the 3 appellants should also be given to the present appellant. In the circumstances, with the consent of the learned counsel for the State, the delay in the filing of the present appeal is condoned.
4. As observed, the case against all the 4 accused is identical and this is conceded by Mr. Abdul Khaliq, learned counsel for the State. In circumstances, I am of the view that the present appellant is also entitled to the same relief as has been extended to the other co-accused. '
5. As a result, the conviction of the appellant is converted from section 412 to section 411, P.P.C. and his sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. As the appellant has undergone the sentence awarded C to him, it is directed that the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Criminal Appeal No.35/L of 1995 stands disposed of in the above terms.
N.H.Q./956/FSC Order accordingly.