1985 P Cr (PLP)

This judgment will dispose of an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 560/81) filed by Liaqat and five others, appellants Nos. 1 to 6, against the judgment of a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Gujranwala, dated 3‑10‑1981, convicting the appellants under sections 325/149, 323/149 and 148, P.P.C. and sentencing them to seven years' rigorous imprisonment each with a fine of Rs.2,000 each or in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under section 325/149, P.P.C. to one year's rigorous imprisonment each with a fine of Rs.300 each or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months each under section 323/149, P.P.C. and two years' rigorous imprisonment each with a fine of Rs.500 each or in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each under section 148, P.P.C., all the sentences being ordered to run consecutively and the fine to be paid to the heirs of the deceased: and a suo motu revision (Criminal Revision No. 38 of 1983) arising out ~;f the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 24‑1‑1983, calling upon the appellants above‑named to show cause why ,their sentences should not be enhanced.

2. Mian Aftab Farrukh, advocate, appears for Ihsan, Zafar, Javid and Liaqat, appellants, and Mr. R.A. Awan, Advocate, appears for Liaqat and Shaukat, appellants. Knawala Shaukat Ali, Advocate, appears for the State.

3. The brief facts of the case need not be given, as both the learned counsel for the appellants do not challenge the conviction of the appellants recorded under sections 325/149, 323/149 and 148, P.P.C. but only pray that the sentences be ordered to run concurrently and the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. be granted to the appellants. The said learned counsel have read certain portions of the evidence in support of their submissions.

4. In view of the statement made by the two learned counsel for the appellants, the conviction of the appellants under sections 325/149, 323/149 and 148, P.P.C. are hereby maintained. Notwithstanding the, fact that the learned trial Judge found that the occurrence was not premeditated, but that the appellants at the most wanted to cause grievous hurt to the two deceased and the two injured witnesses but from the very large number of injuries on the said four persons it cannot be doubted that the attack was persistent and sustained and carried to the extreme limit. In these circumstances, the consecutive sentences awarded to the appellants can neither be said to be unreasonable nor unfair. The attack almost bordered on the limits of premeditated murder. The sentences awarded cannot be reduced. However, it appears that the trial Judge did not take into consideration section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. when awarding the sentences. The appellants have undergone certain periods of detention as under‑trial prisoners. In the interest of justice, they are entitled to the remission of these periods. In these circumstances, the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. is granted to the appellants.

5. With regard to the suo motu notice issued by this Court to the appellants to show cause why their sentences shall not be enhanced, I notice that the maximum sentences that can be imposed under sections 325/149 and 323/149, P.P.C. have already been awarded. In these circumstances, there is no further scope for enhancement of the sentences of the appellants under these sections. In these circumstances, no further action is called for on the revision petition.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal (Criminal Appeal 560 of 1981) filed by Liaquat and others, appellants Nos. 1 to 6 is dismissed and the suo motu notice issued by this Court in revision (Criminal Revision 38 of 1983) is recalled. However, the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. shall be allowed to the appellants by the jail authorities, when calculating their sentences. H. A. Appeal dismissed.