IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2021

Appellants: Arsalan and Mujeeb-ur-Rehman through Mr. Riaz Akhtar Soomro advocate

The State: Through Mr. Siraj Ali Chandio, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearing: 04.11.2022

Date of judgment: 04.11.2022

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- It is alleged that appellants with one more culprit robbed complainant Muhammad Asif of his cell phone, for that they booked and reported upon. On conclusion of trial, they were convicted under Section 397 PPC read with section 34 PPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years with benefit of section 382(b) Cr.P.C by learned X-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South vide judgment dated 30.04.2021, which is impugned by the appellants before this Court by preferring the instant appeal.

2. At the very outset, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that no weapon was used by the appellants in commission of the incident, therefore, the offence at the most would fall under Section 392 PPC, therefore, he would not press disposal of instant appeal on merits, provided the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to one which they have already undergone by modifying the penal section, which is not opposed by learned Addl. PG for the State.

3. Admittedly, no weapon was used by the appellants in commission of incident, therefore, the offence, if any, would fall under Section 392 PPC, the punishment to the appellants for offence punishable u/s 397 PPC as such was misplaced. Thus, it is modified to one u/s 392 PPC, consequently, the appellants are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days with benefit of section 382(b) Cr.P.C.

4. In case of Salah-Ud-Din vs. The State (1990 P.Cr.L.J 1221), it has been held by Lahore High Court that;

“In the present case the appellant had not used their weapons. What they had done was the pointation of weapons at the complainant and under the fear thereof, he was made to surrender his Rickshaw and Rs.10/-, he was carrying. The offence committed, thus amounted to simple robbery punishable under Section 392 of the Code.”

5. Subject to above modification, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE