Reduction in sentence

2022 PCrLJN 126 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

SentenceMitigating factorsReduction in sentenceScopeIf there appeared single mitigating factor, it could be considered sufficient to award lesser sentence

Court could exercise its discretion where a case qualified for awarding of both, imprisonment for life and death penalty, in presence of a mitigating circumstance, to award the lesser sentence.

2021 PLD 152 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5(r) & 31-DWilful defaultAppreciation of evidenceDefence evidence, non-giving ofFailure to give reasons to repay loanReduction in sentence

Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court for committing offence of wilful default and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years along with fine

Validity

Evidence of investigating officer and other evidence on record including oral and documentary evidence, matter was thoroughly and independently investigated by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and was found to be a case of wilful default which justifiably led NAB filing a reference under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, before concerned Trial Court

All prosecution witnesses gave consistent, non-contradictory evidence, at trial, which was reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring

None of the evidence of prosecution was dented during cross examination

Evidence of prosecution witnesses was corroborated by documents exhibited at trial

Accused persons did not put forward any plausible reason as to why they failed to repay loan and did not even join investigation of NAB to justify their position despite they were sent call up notices

Accused persons did not give evidence on oath at trial in order to justify their position

High Court declined to interfere in conviction awarded by Trial Court but reduced sentence of imprisonment from ten years to five years without altering amount of fine imposed

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2021 PCrLJN 19 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 409Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent, abetment, criminal misconductAppreciation of evidenceReduction in sentenceDocumentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution had corroborated the prosecution caseDivergent and self-destructive pleas were taken by the defence during the evidenceProsecution had proved the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubtTrial Court by appreciating the evidence brought on the record had convicted and sentenced the accusedAccused had served sentence of one year five months and twenty four days including the remissionAccused, who was stated to be a first offender, had also shown his remorse and penitence as convict

Sentence awarded to the accused was altered and reduced to the period already undergone by him, by the High Court, in circumstances

Appeal against conviction was disposed of accordingly.

2018 PCrLJ 959 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

SentenceQuantum ofReduction in sentenceScope

Plea of reduction in sentence, however shall not be available to hardened criminals, guilty of serious offences.

2015 PCrLJ 1340 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(2) & 13Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 57Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionConviction by foreign courtReduction in sentenceScopeRemissions, entitlement of

Petitioner was convicted by Court in United Kingdom for transporting 195 kilograms of cocaine (drug) and was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment

After serving out about six years in foreign prison he was transferred to Pakistan to serve out remaining sentence

Petitioner sought reduction in his sentence on the plea that in Pakistan sentence for the offence he was convicted was lesser than that was imposed by foreign Court and also claimed to be entitled to remissions in his sentence

Validity

Where quantity of narcotic drug had exceeded 10 kilograms, the proviso to S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, mentioned that punishment would not be less than imprisonment for life

Quantity of narcotic drug involved was 195 kilograms, was above the specified 10 kilograms, therefore, he would not have been punished with lesser sentence

Imprisonment for life in Pakistan, under S.57, P.P.C. was reckoned as equivalent to 25 years

Sentence awarded to petitioner by foreign Court could not be termed excessive or incompatible with any law of Pakistan

Reduction of sentence on the basis of foreign laws was not tenable as those laws were not enforceable in Pakistan and through S. 9(2), Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002, after transfer of convict to Pakistan the sentence was enforced in accordance with laws of Pakistan

No distinction was made by S.9(2) of Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002, between period served by transferred offender in sending countries or the period was required to be served in Pakistan

Sentence was taken as a whole and for enforcement it remained subservient to Pakistani law

Petitioner was entitled to avail remissions allowed in Pakistan for whole sentence period i.e. period served in foreign country as well in Pakistan

High Court directed the authorities to re-issue Roll of Sentence after going through the record

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

2014 YLR 967 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-e-amdAppreciation of evidenceReduction in sentenceMitigating circumstances

Eye-witness account was furnished by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, who had rendered full support to the case of prosecution

Incident was a broad-daylight occurrence, and prosecution witnesses had explained each and every segment of occurrence in the most scrupulous way during their statements

Said witnesses had also explained the mode and manner of the taking place of occurrence

Prosecution witnesses were ready to swear on Holy Quran that accused was the actual accused; they had sufficiently proved their presence at the place of occurrence at relevant time; and witnessing the occurrence, vis-à-vis the culpability of accused in the case

Minor contradictions, in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, was not fatal to prosecution case

Discrepancies in the medical evidence, and the ocular account, did not carry much weight, especially in the circumstances when otherwise the ocular account was proved through trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence

Matter was reported to the Police, with sufficient promptitude; and no unconscionable or inexcusable delay had taken place in registration of the F.I.R.

Delay, if any in conducting the post mortem of the deceased, was on the part of Doctor; and delay alone could not destroy the prosecution case in presence of the confidence inspiring evidence

Parties to the case, were known to each other, and being closely related to each other, there was no chance of mistaken identity or substitution of accused with real culprit

Bald plea taken by accused that the deceased was murdered by someone else, was an afterthought, taken at belated stage, just to save his skin

Medical evidence had provided full support to the prosecution version

Forensic Science Laboratory's report was positive; and motive set up by prosecution in the F.I.R., was not proved

Prosecution, in circumstances, had proved its case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt

Case, however carried some exceptional/ mitigating circumstances in favour of accused

Sentence of death awarded to accused was not justified, but appeared to be harsh one in circumstances; accused was entitled to benefit of doubt as extenuating circumstance, in the matter of sentence

Capital punishment of death, which would not serve the interest of justice, was converted into life imprisonment

Conviction of accused to the extent of payment of compensation to the legal heirs of deceased, was maintained and upheld; and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him.