' IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, J.---In this instant appeal leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 23-8-2006 which reads as under:-- "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and taking into consideration the conflict of medical evidence and ocular evidence according to which fatal injury was not attributed to the petitioner, we deem it proper to grant leave to appeal, inter alia, to consider the question regarding the legality of conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner. Leave is accordingly granted in these petitions."
' Through this appeal the appellant, Muhammad Anwar, has called' in question the judgment dated 13-2-2006 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, in Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2001 and Murder Reference No.33 of 2001, whereby his convictions and sentences under sections 302(b)/34 and 337-A(ii), P.P.C. Awarded by the learned trial Court for causing death of Muhammad Arshad, deceased, and also for causing injuries to Muhammad Safdar, P.W., had been maintained. The learned High Court while dismissing the appeal through the same judgment has also answered the Murder Reference No. 33 of 2001 in the affirmative.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the F.I.R. Lodged by Din Muhammad, complainant, on 7-6-1997 at Police Station Khichi Wala, Tehsil Fortabbas, District Bahawalnagar, are that the appellant Muhammad Anwar resident of Chak No. 166/7-R Sharqi, who was a man of ill-repute and used to tease the women folk of complainant's Chak, was forbidden by Muhammad Arshad son of the complainant from doing so which annoyed the appellant. On the fateful day at morning time, the appellant visited the shop of complainant at Adda Rafiqabad and asked the complainant to restrain his son from forbidding him to come to their Chak otherwise Muhammad Arshad, deceased, would face the consequences. On the same day at about 6-00 p.m., the complainant's sons Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Safdar came at the shop and asked him that a drill machine was required for sowing cotton. The complainant told them drill machine was available in the land of Muzaffar Hussain. The complainant along with his sons went to the land of Muzaffar Hussain and when they were about to load the drill machine on the tractor, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Sarwar, appellants/accused, armed with daggers and Waqar Hussain empty handed came there. Muhammad Anwar raised lalkara that Muhammad Arshad would not be spared.
Muhammad Anwar gave a dagger blow on the left bicep of Muhammad Arshad. Waqar Hussain overpowered Muhammad Arshad from his back while Muhammad Anwar repeated the dagger blows, hitting on the abdomen of Muhammad Arshad as a result of which he fell on the ground.
Muhammad Sarwar also gave dagger blows to Muhammad Arshad. When Muhammad Safdar came forward to rescue his brother, Waqar Hussain caught hold of him, Muhammad Anwar gave a dagger blow on his mouth as a result whereof-Muhammad Safdar fell on the ground. Muhammad Sarwar gave dagger blow on his neck. Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Sarwar gave more dagger blows to Muhammad Safdar. The hue and cry raised by the complainant attracted Muzaffar Hussain and Muhammad Boota Shahid to the spot. The said P.Ws. Witnessed the occurrence. On seeing the P.Ws., the accused while brandishing their daggers made good their escape. Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Safdar were taken to the hospital in injured condition where Muhammad Arshad succumbed to his injuries. After investigation the appellant was arrested and his Challan was submitted before the trial Court. On completion of the trial the learned trial Court through its judgment dated 30-6-2001 convicted the appellant under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. For committing murder of Muhammad Arshad, deceased, and sentenced him to death with an order to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default thereof to undergo six months' R.I. The appellant was also convicted under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. For injuring Muhammad Safdar and sentenced to five years' R.I. With an order to pay Rs.10,000 as Arsh to injured Muhammad Safdar. The learned trial Court also forwarded the Murder Reference to the learned Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench for confirmation of death sentence.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the learned Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which has been dismissed and the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court have been upheld, hence this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant adverted our attention towards the latest view of this Court enshrined in the cases of Dilawar Hussain v. The State (2013 SCM R 1582), Hassan and others v. The State and others (PLD 2013 SC 793), Muhammad Iqbal and others v. The State and others (Criminal Appeals 119 and 120 of 2005), Ghazanfar Abbas and others v. The State (Criminal Appeal 193 of 2002) and Mazhar Shah @ Mundri v. The. State (Criminal Appeal 393 of 2002) wherein the convictions of the convicts have been maintained but their sentence of death has been converted into imprisonment for life on the ground that the convicts have remained behind the bars in death cell for a substantial period of time due to pendency of their trial before the trial Court as well as their appeals before the High Court and the Supreme Court. The learned counsel further asserted that in the instant case the appellant is in confinement for more than 16 years as such following the ratio in the above mentioned judgments the appellant is entitled to reduction in quantum of his sentence from death to imprisonment for life.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General for the State opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgments of the courts below.
5. Heard. We have gone through the judgments of the courts below as well as the record available with us.
6. Both the learned trial Court and the High Court no doubt have duly apprised the evidence in its true perspective and have rightly came to the conclusion while imparting their judgments of conviction against the appellant which had duly been elaborated and dilated upon by both the courts. The learned counsel for the appellant has neither adverted nor controverted the same. As such the conviction of the appellant is maintained, however, in view of the judgments of this Court passed in the cases of Hassan etc., Dilawar Hussain, Muhammad Iqbal, Ghazanfar Abbas, etc.. And Mazhar Shah @ Mundri. Referred supra. The appellant, who is already in the death cell for the last more than 16 years, cannot be subjected to double punishment as has been held in the case of Hassan, etc., relevant portion therefrom is reproduced herein below:-- "21. We have also observed above that the stark reality staring us in the face is that both the appellants have already spent in custody a period more than a full term of imprisonment for life and if we uphold their sentences of death at this late stage then the appellants would, for all practical purposes, be punished with death after spending a period in custody which is more than a full term of imprisonment for life and such a bizarre situation may run contrary to the letter and the spirit of section 302(b), P.P.C. Which provides for a sentence of death or a sentence of imprisonment for life. Such a case may not strictly be termed as a case of double punishment but it can more appropriately be called a case of an unconscionably delayed punishment delayed to such an extent that the punishment is aggravated beyond the contemplation of the relevant law itself. Upon the analogy of sections 497, 426 and 382-B, Cr.P.C. Noted above the legislative intent may lean in favour of extending some relief to the appellants placed in such a predicament which is not of their own making and the least that this Court can do for them in such an unfortunate situation is to exercise its discretion in the matter of their sentences by reducing their sentences of death to imprisonment for life on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case detailed above and also on the basis of principle of expectancy of life. In the case in hand after committing the abominable crime of murder the appellants have been vegetating and rotting in death cells awaiting,, their execution for so long that they now appear to have become victims themselves, victims of a monumental systemic failure which the system must acknowledge and own and in return it should extend the appellants some respite or reparation.
' Keeping in view the cited cases (supra) and the fact that the appellant is in the death cell for more than 16 years, regarding which due verification has also been obtained from the jail authorities, we are inclined to hold that the appellant is substantially entitled to reduction in quantum of his sentence.
7. Resultantly, we, while maintaining appellant's conviction, partly allow the instant appeal only to the extent of quantum of sentence and reduce it from death to imprisonment for life with benefit of section 382-B. Cr.P.C. His sentences of imprisonment for life and imprisonment under section 337- A(ii), P.P.C. Shall run concurrently. However, the sentence to pay Rs. 10,000 as Arsh to injured Muhammad Safdar is maintained. He shall also be entitled to the remissions granted to prisoners in accordance with law and rules framed thereunder. The instant appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.