ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.
Cr. Jail Appeal No.S-85 of 1999.
Cr. Appeal No. S-94 of 1999.
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
1. FOR REGULAR HEARING.
02.11.2009.
Mr. Nandan A.Kella, advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, A.P.G Sindh.
=
This appeal has been directed against the Judgment dated 10.07.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar in S.C No.219/1997, Crime No.10/19976 of P.S. Chotyariyon for offence punishable u/s 302, 34 PPC, whereby he convicted the above appellants and sentenced them for life imprisonment u/s 302(b) PPC and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each as compensation to be paid to the heirs of deceased, in case of default in payment of fine, to suffer further imprisonment for six months. The appellants were further convicted and sentenced u/s 201 PPC to undergo R.I. for 3 years each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof to suffer further S.I. for six months. The benefit of section 382(b) Cr.P.C has been extended to the appellants.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants contended that he does not press this appeal on merits but he would be satisfied if the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants be converted to the period, which they have already undergone. He further submitted that the appellants have already served the sentence to the extent of 24 years including remissions.
Learned State Counsel very frankly conceded the above factual position.
The jail roll verifies the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the detention of the appellants in jail. Three appellants have been convicted as stated above for committing murder of deceased Noor Muhammad as they had suspicion that deceased had illicit relations with Mst. Marul, sister of the appellant Khan Muhammad.
Since the appellants have undergone the major portion of their sentence and per jail roll, they have remained in jail for 12 years and earned remission for more than 12 years, which become 24 years. The appellants are first offenders and they are said to be sole bread earner of their respective family members. Keeping in view the above aspects of the matter, I dismiss the appeal of the appellants and convert the sentence and fine imposed upon them to the period, which they have already undergone.
With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the appellants forthwith if not required in any other case.
JUDGE.
A.C