IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Jail Appeal No. 348 of 2018

Appellant: Azeemuddin through Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed Shah advocate

The State: Through Mr. Faheem Hussain Panhwar Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearing: 10.10.2022

Date of judgment: 10.10.2022

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- It is alleged that the appellant and absconding accused Muhammad Jameel and Muhammad Jabbar in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of baby Palwasha, a girl of aged about 09 years by strangulating her neck after subjecting her to rape, for that they were booked and reported upon. On conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) PPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- and in default whereof to undergo imprisonment for 06 months; the appellant was further convicted under Section 376 PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years; all the sentences were ordered to run consecutively with benefit of section 382(b) Cr.P.C, by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Karachi West, vide judgment dated 01.10.2013, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Jail Appeal.

2. At the very outset, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that he would not press disposal of instant jail appeal provided the sentences awarded to the appellant are ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 382(b) Cr.P.C, which is not opposed by learned DPG for the state.

3. In case of Muhammad Sharif vs. The State (2014 SCMR 668), it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that;

“The offences committed by the petitioner in respect of murder, wrongful confinement and abduction were parts of the same transaction and, thus, ordinarily the sentences passed for such offences ought to have been ordered to run concurrently to each other. It appears that in the judgment under review this aspect of the matter had escaped the notice of this Court. The Suo Motu Review is, therefore, allowed and it is ordered that all the sentences of imprisonment passed against the petitioner shall run concurrently to each other. Disposed of.”

4. In view of above, it is ordered that the sentences awarded to the appellant to run concurrently, with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.

5. Subject to above modification, the instant jail appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

JUDGE