1989 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 304/34‑‑Quantum of sentence‑‑Accused had already undergone major portion of his sentence‑‑Accused not acting in cruel or brutal manner‑‑Held, it would not be proper to send accused back to jail for couple of months‑‑Sentence reduced to the one already undergone in circumstances. Arif Shah v. The State 1977 S C M R 33 rel. Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa for Appellants. Chaudhry Talib Hussain for the State. Date of hearing: 7th February, 1989. The appellants and five others were tried for offences under section 302/f48/149, P.P.C. in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, for committing the murder of one Gul Muhammad. The trial Court acquitted the five co‑accused of the appellants but convicted the present appellants under section 304, P.P.C. vide judgment, dated 21‑3‑1978. Lal appellant was sentenced to‑six years' R.I. while only a fine of Rs.2,000 was imposed on Jamal appellant.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants sated that Jamal appellant has already paid the fine before the date fixed by the trial Court and that he does not challenge the conviction and sentence of Jamal appellant. Therefore, the appeal in respect of Jamal is dismissed. So far as Lal appellant is concerned, the learned counsel has not challenged his conviction but has merely prayed for reduction of the sentence to the one already undergone. In this connection, he has pointed out that out of the substantive sentence of six years, the appellant has remained in the jail as undertrial prisoner for two years four months and two days: After conviction he has remained in the jail for three years and fourteen days. The appellant has suffered imprisonment for five years, four months and sixteen days. The appellant has already undergone a major portion of his sentence. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the appellant had not acted in a cruel or brutal manner. Moreover, his sentence was suspended on 5‑4‑1981 and it would not be proper to send him back to the jail for a couple of months. 1n this behalf, he has relied upon Arif Shah v. The State 1977 S C M R

33. I agree with the' contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and allow the appellant the benefit of section 382‑B of the Cr.P.C. The conviction of the appellant is maintained but his sentence is reduced to the one already undergone. The appeal is partly allowed with the modification in the sentence as mentioned above. S.A./L‑30/L Sentence reduced.