IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Crl. Appeal No. D- 37 of 2022.

Crl. Appeal No. D- 38 of 2022.

Present:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar.

Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana.

Rahzan Sabzoi. ……………...………...Appellant.

Versus

The State. …..…....……………..Respondent.

Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijrani, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing: 02.04.2024.

Date of Judgment: 02.04.2024.

Judgment

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J-. This common judgment would dispose of the captioned two appeals, as the same are interconnected. Through these appeals, appellant Rahzan son of Shahmir Sabzoi has assailed the judgment dated 07.9.2022 penned down by learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court Kashmore @ Kandhkot, in amalgamated cases i.e. Special case No. 24 and 24-A of 2022, emanating from F.I.R No. 11 and 12 of 2022 of P.S Tangwani, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 324 read with Section 149 P.P.C., Sections 7 (1) (b) (b) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as well as under Section 23 (i) (a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 read with Section 7 (1) (i) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The maximum sentence awarded to appellant on various counts is ten years and fine.

2. At the very outset learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has mostly completed quantum of sentence awarded to him. He further submitted that, he is ready not to press instant appeal on merit, if sentence of appellant is reduced to that of already undergone, as he has sufficiently been punished for remaining in jail. Therefore, appellant may be given a chance in his life to rehabilitate himself. Per learned counsel for appellant, the appellant is previous non-convict and he is sole breadwinner of his entire family, who are on starvation due to confinement of appellant. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant is a first offender and his conduct as reported in the jail-roll has remained satisfactory.

3. Conversely, the learned Addl. P.G. submits that the appellant has sufficiently been punished as he has remained in jail for sufficient period; therefore, he recorded no objection, if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to that of already undergone.

4. It appears from the record that appellant was arrested on 18.03.2022 and since then he has been in the jail, for a period of more than two years and besides aforesaid period of more than two years, the appellant may have also earned remissions. This appears to be an adequate portion of sentence. Moreover, conduct of the appellant in jail is also “satisfactory” as reported by the jail authorities. The appellant also appears to be first offender, as there is no such material on record that the appellant is already convicted in any other case.

5. It is a well-established principle of law that in special circumstances, the Court at its discretion can divert from the norms and standards prescribed in terms of sentencing guidelines after assigning cogent reasons. In this respect, reliance is placed on the case of State through Deputy Director (Law), Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force v. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi (PLD 2017 SC 671) wherein it has been held that:-

“The exercise of jurisdiction and discretion in the matter of the respondent's sentence by the trial court and the High Court have not been found by us to be open to any legitimate exception, particularly when the reasons recorded for passing a reduced sentence against the respondent and for making a departure from the above mentioned sentencing guidelines have been found by us to be proper in the peculiar circumstances of this case.”

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court had also been pleased to reduce sentence in cases of similar nature reported as Sherzada v. The State (1993 SCMR 149) and Gul Badshah v. The State (2011 SCMR 984).

7. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellant has succeeded to make out a case for reduction of his sentence. Therefore, in order to give a chance to the appellant in his life to rehabilitate himself so also following the dictum laid down case of State through Deputy Director (Law), Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force v. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi; Sherzada v. The State and Gul Badshah v. The State (supra) and case of Niaz-ud-Din v. The State (2007 SCMR 206), these appeals are partly allowed. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, the sentence inflicted on him in both cases is reduced to that of already undergone including sentence of fine amount and the term of imprisonment in default thereof. The appellant is reported to be in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case.

Judge

Ansari