Enhancement of sentence

2026 YLR 978 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 354, 452 & 506Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 435 & 439

Qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, criminal intimidation

Appreciation of evidence

Enhancement of sentence

Brutal and inhumane nature of offence

Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of complainant by firing

In order to do justice with the little soul of the deceased, this court deemed it imperative to reevaluate the sentencing of the appellant

In criminal justice in general and in the given circumstances of case in particular, this Court could not afford to be carried away in either direction

Said balance between rights of the individual and the community was a tight rope walk

Trial Court decided to award the lesser sentence, but it apparently failed to fully appreciate the manner the deceased was done to death

Circumstances of the present case left little for the absence or weakness of motive

Accused acted brutally and acted inhumanly

What justification was available to the convict to kill, that too, by trespassing into the house

Spot was proved, the witnesses were consistent and the matter was promptly reported

Convict deserved the major penalty of death, as that would be the appropriate punishment and would commensurate with the gravity of the offence and would reciprocate what the appellant did

Criminal revision petition was allowed to the extent of conviction under S.302(b) P.P.C, by enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to death, in circumstances.

2021 PCrLJ 1517 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 497, 439, 426 & 435RevisionEnhancement of sentenceSuspension of sentence where length of sentence fell within parameters of a "short sentence"Bail pending appeal, grant ofScope

Accused impugned order made under S. 439, Cr.P.C. whereby his sentence was enhanced from four years to seven years and sought suspension of sentence and release on bail

Contention of accused, inter alia, was that impugned order for enhancement of sentence was made by revisional court under S. 439, Cr.P.C. without issuing notice to accused

Validity

Failure to issue notice to accused meant that order for enhancement of his sentence could not be sustained and same was a glaring illegality which was floating on surface of impugned order

Sentence of accused fell within parameters of "short sentence" and therefore such sentence of accused was suspended and accused was ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing of surety

Revision was allowed, accordingly.

2020 PLD 146 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 185(3)Sentence passed by a Single Bench of the High CourtEnhancement of sentenceScope

State had the remedy to seek the enhancement of the sentence passed by the Single Bench of the High Court, by filing a petition for leave before the Supreme Court under Cl.(3) of Art.185 of the Constitution.

2016 MLD 2043 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)(c)Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceEnhancement of sentenceMotive, not provedEffectState sought enhancement in sentence of the accusedPlea raised by accused was that alleged motive as depicted by prosecution was not provedValidityMinor discrepancies existed in prosecution case and handcart was not seized by local police

Such facts were not fatal to prosecution case keeping in view remaining evidence available on record being worth reliance and sufficient for bringing home the guilt of accused

Motive could not be sine qua non for bringing home guilt to an accused and it was enough to determine factum of intention which could be gathered from facts and circumstances

If guilt of accused stood proved in light of statements of eyewitnesses, then absence of motive or failure on part of prosecution to prove the same could not adversely affect ocular account produced by witnesses

Occurrence originated from a petty matter and there was no evidence of premeditation on part of accused

Court in the light of principle of proportionality could avoid awarding of capital punishment to an accused

Trial Court penalized accused under S. 302(c), P.P.C., and the same was not fair just keeping in view the mode and manner in which accused inflicted knife injury to deceased

Proof of the sort specified in S. 302, P.P.C., was not available and mitigating circumstances existed for avoiding death sentence

High Court converted conviction to S. 302(b), P.P.C., and enhanced sentence to imprisonment for life as 'T'azir'

Revision was allowed accordingly.

2014 PCrLJ 78 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 561-A & 32Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.499, 500, provisoConstitution of Pakistan, Art.12DefamationEnhancement of sentencePetition for quashing of orderJudicial Magistrate/Trial Court, convicted accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.10,000 (Ten thousands)Accused, did not challenge said conviction and sentence and deposited amount of fine

Complainant, assailed said order/judgment of the Trial Court by filing revision petition; and Revisional/Appellate Court, not only upheld conviction of accused, but also enhanced amount of fine from Rs.10,000 to Rs.100,000 (one lac)

Accused had sought quashing of said order passed by Appellate Court by filing petition under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.

Offence, as complained was committed in the year 1992, whereas proviso to S.500, P.P.C. was inserted in the year 2004

Prior to amendment, the sentence provided under S.500, P.P.C. at the time of commission of the offence, in term of fine was not specifically determined; and as 1st Class Magistrate, on the day of commission of the offence, was not authorized to inflict greater sentence in term of fine more than Rs.45,000 as envisaged in S.32, Cr.P.C., then the Revisional Court could not inflict a higher sentence than one, which might have been inflicted by a Magistrate

Substantive law, applied, amended, would not operate retrospectively, but prospectively

Section 500, P.P.C. having been amended with effect from 2004, quantum of sentence provided thereunder, and enhanced in term of imprisonment and fine, would not affect accused, purportedly committed the offence, but certainly before the said amendment

Any punishment/sentence awarded to an accused against the provisions of the Constitution, would not hold field at all

Conviction and sentence, in derogation of the provisions of Art.12 of the Constitution, could not be sustained on any ground whatsoever

Impugned judgment was set aside and case was remanded to the Appellate Court to re-hear the appeal in the light of the provision of law.

2013 SCMR 596 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 133-BConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 9 & 188Enhancement of sentenceRight of individual to be dealt with in accordance with lawScopeAccused were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Court MartialAppeals filed by accused before Court of Appeal barred by timeCourt of Appeal entertaining such appeals and enhancing sentence of accused to deathLegality

Appeals filed before Court of Appeal were admittedly barred by time, thus there were no appeals before the Court in terms of S.133-B of Pakistan Army Act, 1952

Enhancement of sentence could not have been made by the Court of Appeal in a vacuum, therefore, enhancement made was against the principles of natural justice enshrined in the maxim "audi alteram partem" and Arts. 4 & 9 of the Constitution

Even if appeals before the Court of Appeal were filed within the limitation period, sentence could not have been enhanced as no opportunity was given to the accused to show cause, as to why their sentences should not be enhanced.