The appellants were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal in case FIR No, 21/1996 dated 01.02.1996 for offences under Sections 337-F(i), 337-F(ii)/302/34 PPC registered at Police Station Dera Raheem, District Sahiwal and was awarded life imprisonment vide the impugned judgment dated 22.3.2001 alongwith payment of compensation of Rs,50,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased. In default whereof he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. Vide the same judgment co-appellants Muhammad Shafique and Muhammad Shabbir were also convicted. Para 28 of the impugned judgment is reproduced here-under: `Muhammad Shabbir accused is sentenced to three years RI alongwith Daman of Rs, 10,000/- as compensation to the victim Ghulam Mustafa and in default of payment of Daman he shall undergo further SI for a period of two months. Shabbir accused is also sentenced to one year RI and as DAMAN Rs, 5000/- as compensation to the victim Muhammad Ramzan and in default of payment of Daman this accused shall undergo further SI for a period of one month. Shafique accused is sentenced to RI for a period of three years and DAMAN Rs, 10,000/- to be paid to the legal heirs of the victim Asghar Ali deceased and default of payment of Daman he shall undergo further SI for a period of two months. However the accused persons are advanced the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.'
3. It is inter cilia contended that at the time of conviction, the age of the appellant was about 70 years and that his sentence was suspended on 11.4.2005 by this Court which order for ready reference is reproduced herein.
"Vide judgment dated 22.3.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal the petitioner Abdul Majeed having been found guilty under Sections 362 (b) PPC was sentenced to life imprisonment with direction to pay Rs, 50,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default of payment thereof to further undergo SI for six months alongwith benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. whereas through the instant application the petitioner has sought suspension of his aforesaid sentence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been attributed a single blow on the inner lower right thigh of deceased Asghar Ali with hatchet. It is also contended that only one injury is attributed to the petitioner and the second injury was attributed to Muhammad Shafiq co-accused. It is further contended that the petitioner is aged about 70 years and is behind the bars for the last about four and a half years but there is no likelihood of hearing of main appeal in near future. It is lastly contended that the petitioner was declared innocent by the police during investigation and was placed in Column No, 2 of the challan by the Investigating Officer. 5.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes this application. 6.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned judgment Only single blow on the inner lower right thigh of Asghar Ali deceased is attributed to the petitioner and this injury was also declared as "Ghair Jaifa Badia" and the petitioner had not repeated the blow. The petitioner was also declared innocent by the police during investigation and was placed in Column No, 2 of the challan Even otherwise, the petitioner is aged about 70 years and occurrence in the present case took place on 30.01.1997 and whether the petitioner had participated in the alleged occurrence or not will be seen at the time of hearing of main appeal. As the old age itself brings the infirmity and keeping in view the role of the petitioner, this application is accepted and the petitioner's sentence is suspended subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court."
7. As is evident from the afore stated order passed by this Court, the appellant was aged about 70 years on 11.04.2005. He has served about six years in jail.
8.In view of age and ailment of the appellant learned Deputy Prosecutor General does not oppose this appeal and submits that the petitioner was found innocent and was placed in Column No, 2 and he is aged about 78 years or so and it would not be in the interest of good administration of justice that he be re-sent to jail. 9.Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. I have found material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, he was found innocent during the course of investigation. Arguments of learned counsels and minute examination of record makes me to believe that probability of his false involvement in the case, being head of his family, for humiliation purpose cannot be ruled out. Keeping in view the afore stated facts and circumstances, in particular, the age and ailment of the appellant while extending him benefit of doubt this appeal is allowed to the extent of Abdul Majeed appellant only.
11.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that co-appellant Muhammad Shafique has already served out his sentence, to his extent appeal has become infructuous.
12.The sentence of Muhammad Shabbir was suspended vide order dated 10.09.2001 by this Court.
Para 2 where of is reproduced hereunder for ready reference.
"So far as applicant Muhammad Shahid convict is concerned learned counsel submits that in terms of the judgment dated 22.3.2001 he was convicted under Section 337-F(ii) PPC and sentenced to three years RI alongwith daman of Rs, 10,000/- as compensation to the victim Ghulam Mustafa and in default of payment Daman he shall undergo further SI for a period of two months. He was also convicted under Section 337-F(i) PPC and sentenced to one year RI and as DAMAN Rs,5000/- as compensation to the victim Muhammad Ramzan and in default of payment of Daman he was to undergo further SI for a period of one month but by in advertence learned trial Court did not specify that the afore referred sentences shall run concurrently. Prays of suspension of sentence on the ground that if the period of detention during trial is counted which benefit of course, was given by the learned trial Court and the sentences are to run concurrently petitioner has already undergone the period of sentences. The learned State counsel has very fairly conceded that he has no objection to the acceptance of this application to the extent of Muhammad Shabhir, convict.
11. In view of the above, this application to the extent of Muhammad Shabbir convict is allowed and his sentences shall remain suspended till the pendency of this appeal provided he furnishes surety bond in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court."
9. Learned counsel for the appellant to his extent submits that he has already served but the substantive sentence and it the same is allowed to run concurrently he has served out more than the sentences awarded to him. At the first instance, he prays that sentence to his extent should be run concurrently and secondly that the same may be reduced to one which he has already undergone.
10. Law on the point is very clear. Since he was convicted and awarded sentences in one case for different offences vide the same judgment, therefore, while respectfully following the law laid down in PLD 1985 page 153 the sentences are directed to run concurrently, which he has already, statedly served out. However, I am of the considered view that in any case re-sending him to jail would not serve any useful purpose nor would it be in the good administration of justice, therefore, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to one which he has already undergone. He is or his surety stands discharged.
12. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of.