2003 PLP 3251 (YLR)

(ii) The accused are also convicted under section 393, P.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. (iii) The accused persons are further convicted under sections 394, 324, P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for 10 years. (iv) The accused persons are also convicted for offence under section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. (v) The accused persons are further convicted under section 7(b) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. (vi) All the three accused persons are further directed to pay fine of Rs.50,000 each, the same, if recovered be paid to seriously injured and disabled P.W. Sabir as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. In default thereof the accused shall f undergo R.I. for one year more. We have heard Mr. Saathi M. Ishaque learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused Soomar and Habib Ahmed learned Assistant Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of the State. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused that he does not press the appeal on merits but requests that the sentence of his clients may be reduced. He stated that the appellant/accused Soomar is young man and he is not previous convict. He belongs to a very poor family and is victim of circumstances. He has repented for the act committed by him and he has also decided not to indulge in such activities in future. It is further stated by the learner counsel that in the same matter sentences of the co‑accused namely, Muhammad Naveed and Muhammad Shahid have been reduced by this Court vide judgment dated 11‑4‑2002; passed in S.T.As. Nos.58, 75, 76 and 77 of 2000 as such a lenient view may also be taken in the present matter. He has placed reliance upon the cases of Province of Sindh and others v. Din Muhammad reported in 1993 SCMR 1551; Tariq Pervez v. The State reported in 1995 SCMR 1345; Saeed and others v. The State reported in 1984 SCMR 1069; Soomar v. The State reported in 1977 PCr.L1 70; Ashiq v. The State reported in 1979 PCr.LJ 480; Shahbaz Ahmed and another v. The State reported in 1994 PCr.LJ 1127; Murid Abbas and others v. The State reported in 1992 SCMR 338; Ghulam Nabi v. Thakur Singh and others reported in AIR 1926 Lahore 239 (1); Abdul Hameed v. The State reported in 1988 SCMR 1772; Samandar Khan and others v. The State reported in 1996 SCMR 380; Muhammad Riaz and another v. The State reported in 1996 SCMR 1089; Shamoon Masih v. The State reported in 2001 PCr.LJ 57 and Muhammad Afzal alias Papu v. The State reported in 1987 PCr.LJ

100. Mr. Habib Ahmed learned Assistant Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of the State conceded to the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused Soomar. He stated that the conviction and sentence of five years and fine of Rs. 25,000 would meet the ends of justice. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and looking towards the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we reduce the sentence of the appellant/accused Soomar as under: ‑‑ (i) Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant/accused Soomar under section 392/34, P.P.C. for 10 years each is modified and converted to section 7(b) of the Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997 and the same is reduced to R.I. for 7 years. (ii) Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant/accused Soomar under section 393, P.P.C. to suffer R.I. for 7 years each is reduced to R.I. for 5 years. (iii) Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant/accused Soomar under sections 394, 324, P.P.C. to suffer R.I for 10 years each is reduced to R.I. for 7 years. (iv) Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant/accused Soomar under section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance, 1965 to suffer R.I. for 7 years each is reduced to R.I. for 5 years. (v) Sentence of fine imposed upon the appellant/accused Soomar to pay fine of Rs.50,000 is reduced to Rs.25,

000. In default of the payment of fine he shall suffer R.I. for six months more. If the amount of fine is realized from the appellant/accused Soomar it should be paid to P.W. Sabir as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. All the sentences to run concurrently. The appellant accused was granted benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. by the trial Court, and the same is also extended to him. In terms stated hereinabove the appeals stand dispose of. H.B.T./S‑317/K Order accordingly.