' Through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., read with section 397, Cr.P.C., Aurangzeb son of Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Azam son of Aurangzeb, (presently confined in Central Jail Sahiwal) have prayed for the sentences, awarded to them, in case F.I.R. No,108 of 1997 dated 28-2-1997 under sections 302/201, P.P.C. (convicted under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C.), Police Station, Saddar Raiwind District Kasur to run concurrently.
2. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of instant petition are that the Anti-Terrorism Court No,1, Lahore, held the petitioners guilty in the above said case, convicted them under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C., and sentenced them to death on six counts vide judgment dated 25-2-2000.
3. The petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No,190 of 2000 against the aforesaid judgment while State submitted a Murder Reference No,247-T of 2000 for confirmation of the death sentence. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed with the modification in sentence that the sentence of death awarded to the petitioners was commuted to imprisonment for life with order to pay compensation amount of Rs,1,00,000 each to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default of payment of compensation, to further undergo six months' S.I. No order, however, with regard to benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was passed either by the learned trial Court or by this Court.
4. The petitioners thereafter, moved an application (Criminal Miscellaneous No,1153-M of 2007) under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For grant of benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Which was allowed by this court vide order dated 15-11-2007.
5. Now the petitioners have moved the instant application for the relief as stated hereinbefore notwithstanding the fact that the order dated 15-11-2007 passed by this Court does not envisage that the petitioners/(appellants) had been sentenced to imprisonment for life on six counts.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, if the sentence of the petitioners was allowed to run consecutively the aggregate sentence of the petitioners would mount to 150 years which is contrary to the provisions of section 35, Cr.P.C., that proviso (a) to section 35, Cr.P.C. Prohibits the giving of consecutive sentence in one trial beyond a period of 14 years; the petitioners once having been allowed the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Are entitled to the relief prayed for i,e,, the concurrence of the sentences.
7. The learned Additional Prosecutor General argues that since six persons were done to death by the convicts therefore, their sentence of life imprisonment on each count was not required by law to run concurrently the petitioners had committed a barbaric and a savage act hence, they are not entitled for any leniency.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Prosecutor- General. The only question involved in this case is whether the sentences of imprisonment for life awarded to Aurangzeb and Muhammad Azam petitioners, presumably on six counts, were to run consecutively or concurrently. Section 57, P.P.C. Lays down that the imprisonment for life shall be reckoned with as equivalent to imprisonment for 25 years. The Provincial Government, however, under section 401, Cr.P.C. Is empowered to remit or commute the sentence. According to Rule 140 of the Prison Rules the span of the imprisonment for life is 25 years. If the remissions, allowed from time to time by the competent authority, were calculated, the minimum period of substantive sentence, required to be undergone by a life convict would be around 15 years. An embargo has been placed by section 35, Cr.P.C. Proviso (a) in terms that the quantum of maximum sentence of imprisonment in case of conviction for more than one offence at one trial should not exceed 14 years.The petitioners if required to undergo their sentences consecutively they shall have to pass a sentence of imprisonment of 150 years as the sentence of imprisonment for life on each count shall start after the expiry of the first sentence, which is not the requirement of law. This issue has been dealt with by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Javed Sheikh v. State" (1985 SCM R 153) wherein it has been held as under:-- "Life imprisonment is, according to section 57 of the P.P.C. To be reckoned as equivalent to 25 years'
R.I. This is one of the punishments which can be imposed on an offender, on account of the substitution of the punishment for transportation for life which was one of the punishments that could be imposed on an offender under section 53 of the P.P.C. And was reckoned as equivalent to fourteen years before its amendment by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. No objection can, therefore, be taken to the imposition of the sentence of life imprisonment, after the promulgation of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. However, the question is whether the appellant can also be sentenced to undergo a further sentence of seven years under section 307, P.P.C. For his having attempted to murder Manzoor Hussain, P. W.5?
' A perusal of proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C., indicates that it prohibits the giving of consecutive sentence in one trial beyond the period of fourteen years, the maximum sentence, short of the death sentence, which could be imposed on an offender before the promulgation of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The said provision (section 35, Cr.P.C.) appears to be in consonance with the scheme and intendment of the Pakistan Penal Code that an offender should only suffer the maximum sentence of imprisonment for any heinous crime (as it stood until 1972) which should not exceed fourteen years. Therefore, the imposition of the sentence of life imprisonment (which means 25 years' R.I., plus seven years' R.I. Under section 307, P.P.C. Would be inconsistent with the intendment of the provisions of proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C., inasmuch as the maximum punishment prescribed for heinous offences shall be exceeded.
The difficulty in this case can be overcome if the sentences awarded to the appellant in respect of the two convictions under section 302, P.P.C. And under section 307, P.P.C. In one and the same trial are directed to run concurrently instead of running consecutively".
9. It is clear from reading of the definition of section 35, Cr.P.C. And the above quoted observance of the apex court that aggregate of punishments of imprisonment for several offences at one trial were deemed to be a single sentence. So there cannot be more than a life sentence at one trial or the aggregate of the said sentences at one trial must not exceed the period of imprisonment mentioned hereinbefore. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that there shall be nothing wrong if the sentences of imprisonment for life on six counts, of the petitioners/ convicts are allowed to run concurrently instead of consecutively.
10. The answer to above question of fact and law has been given in a recent judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case "Shah Hussain v. The State" (PLD 2009 SC 460) wherein the sentences of the appellant have not only been allowed to run concurrently but also he has been awarded the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Besides, he has been held entitled to the remissions granted by the Authority in his post-conviction period or during his pre-sentence detention period.
11. For the above reasons, we hold that the petitioners sentence of imprisonment for life on six counts shall run concurrently and not consecutively with the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. And all the remissions pertaining to pre-judgment detention and post judgment detention shall be available to them.
' The instant petition stands accepted.