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