IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2012
Faisal son of Nooruddin.
...
..
.
.Appellant
Versus
The State
..
..
....Respondent
Date of Hearing & Judgment :- 21.11.2017
Appellant
in person
Mr. Muntazir Mehdi, DPG for the State
J U D G M E N T
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: The appellant is produced by his surety Mst. Nafeesa Begum who is also
his mother and requests for condonation of his absence
on the ground that counsel for appellant could not communicate the date of
hearing to him. Absconce of appellant is condoned and
BW issued against him is hereby recalled.
2. It
appears that instant appeal is pending since 2012 while from perusal of
impugned judgment dated 09.12.2012 passed by learned Ist
Additional Sessions Judge Malir Karachi, it appears
that appellant was convicted for offence under Section 394 PPC and was sentenced
to suffer RI for 04 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in case of default
thereof, to further undergo SI for one month.
3. The
case against the appellant is that he was arrested by the police while
snatching mobile phone of the complainant but his companion succeeded to escape
from the scene.
3. The
appellant states that he has been acquitted in the companion case registered
vide FIR No.93/2008 registered under Section 13-D of Pakistan Arms Ordinance,
1965 at PS Ibrahim Hydery and now there remains the
instant case. He also pleaded his innocence.
4. Learned
DPG submits that the appellant is involved in other cases and sentence awarded
to him by learned trial Court is correct. He opposed the instsant
criminal appeal.
5. I
have heard the arguments and gone through the available record. In the instant
case, the appellant has been convicted and awarded sentence of RI for 04 years
as well as fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof he has to serve SI for 01
month more. As per report of Jail Superintendent, the appellant has served more
than an years sentence before releasing on bail.
6. I
have gone through the depositions and it appears that the witnesses are firm
and there was no major contradiction in their instance taken before learned
trial court. However, the appellant present in court is a young man and considering
the offence specially when the appellant has been
acquitted in the companion case, I consider that quantum of sentence is
excessive. Therefore, while dismissing the instant appeal, I reduce the
sentence as already undergone including the sentence in lieu of fine. The
appellant is present on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled and surety is
discharged.
J
U D G E