SARDAR MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ DOGAR, J. By means of the instant constitutional petition in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner Shoukat Ali seeks concurrence of the sentences awarded to him in two separate trials generated from two separate FIRs by the different Courts.
2. Relevant but brief facts sufficient for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was booked in the following crimes, by Police Station Sarai Alamgir, Gujrat:
(i) In case FIR No.900/2002 under sections 302, 324, 148, 109, 427, P.P.C. and 7, A.T.A., 1997; and
(ii) FIR No.506/2001 under sections 302, 324, 109, 34, P.P.C.
In case FIR No.900/2002, after conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was awarded conviction and sentences by the learned trial Court/Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Gujranwala vide judgment dated 17.6.2004 in the following manner:-
1. Under section 302(b), P.P.C. and 7(a) of A. T.A., 1997: Sentenced to death on six (06) counts and Rs. 5,00,000/- as fine and in default of fine to further undergo S.I. for 02 years.
2. Under section 324, P.P.C. and 7(c) of A.T.A., 1997: Sentenced to life imprisonment on two counts and Rs.1,00,000/- as fine and in default whereof to further under S.I. for six months.
3. Under section 427, P.P. C. and 7(d) of A.T.A., 1997: Sentenced to two years' R.I.
All the above sentences of imprisonment were ordered to be run concurrently anti benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the petitioner. The petitioner lodged Criminal Appeal No.985/2004 before this Court against his conviction and sentences, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.6.2009. Being aggrieved of the said judgment, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.227-L of 2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, and the same was partly allowed vide judgment dated 02.6.2016 in the following manner - "For what has been discussed above the prayers made by the learned counsel for the appellants have been found by us to be justified and, thus, meriting acceptance. Criminal Appeals Nos. 225-L, 226-L and 227-L of 2009 are, therefore, partly allowed to the extent that all references to different provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in the matter of the appellants' convictions recorded and upheld by the courts below are set aside, the remaining convictions of the appellants on the relevant courts of the charge recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court are maintained, the sentences of death passed against all the appellants on six counts of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. are converted into sentences of imprisonment for life each and the remaining sentences passed against the appellants on the other counts of the charge are maintained. All the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellants shall run concurrently to each other and the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be extended to them.
We note that instead of passing an order regarding payment of compensation by the appellants to the heirs of the deceased in connection with the relevant counts of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. the trial court had passed an order regarding payment of fine which was unwarranted. The fine imposed upon the appellants under section 302(b), P.P.C. shall be treated as an order regarding payment of compensation to the heirs of the deceased under section 544- A, Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of compensation the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months each on each court. The remaining orders passed against the appellants in respect of payment of fine are maintained these appeals are disposed of in these terms."
The petitioner was also convicted and sentenced in another case FIR No.506/2001 by the learned trial Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian vide judgment dated 21.11.2006 in the following manner: I. Under section 302(b), P.P.C.: Sentenced to death and to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation w the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereof the petitioner shall also suffer six months' S.I.
2. Under section 324, P.P.C.: Sentenced to suffer 10 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.20, 000/- or in default thereof to suffer further two months' S.I.
3. Under section 337-F(i), P.P.C.: Sentenced to suffer six months as Ta'zir and to pay Daman of Rs.5000/-.
The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to be run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.502-J of 2006 before this Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.07.2011 by converting the death sentence into imprisonment for life.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The sole grievance of the petitioner voiced through the instant petition is that although the sentences awarded to him were ordered to be run concurrently in each case, however, not concurrent with both cases. With considerable vehemence the learned counsel, while relying on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Shah Hussain (PLD 2009 SC 460) and that of Hassan and others (PLD 2013 SC 793), urged that after spending many years in Death-Cell, the sentence/sentences given to the petitioner were commuted by this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court to life imprisonment, therefore, the expectancy of life has become a strong phenomenon to attract the beneficial and fair interpretation of this Court in the above two reported judgments to their case. It is by now well embedded and deeply entrenched universal principle of law that while interpreting the provision of punitive law, Courts are required to strive in search of an interpretation, which prefer the liberty of a person instead of curtailing A the same and that too unreasonably and unfairly unless, the statutory law clearly directs otherwise.
5. The petitioner was admitted in jail on 31.1.2003 and as per jail report furnished by Superintendent District Jail Gujrat, the probable date of his release is 20.8.2045. Besides the provisions of section 35, Cr.P.C. the provisions of section 397, Cr.P.C. altogether provide entirely a different proposition widening the scope of discretion of the Court to direct that sentences of imprisonment or that of life imprisonment awarded at the same trial or at two different trials but successively, shall run concurrently. Once the Legislation has conferred the above discretion in the Court then in hardship cases, Courts are required to seriously take into consideration the same to the benefit of the accused so that to minimize and liquidate the hardship treatment, the accused person is to get and to liquidate the same as far as possible. In a situation like the present one, the Court of law cannot fold up its hands to deny the benefit of the said beneficial provision to an accused person because denial in such a case would amount to a ruthless treatment to the petitioner and he would certainly die while undergoing such long imprisonment in prison. Guidance is sought from Mst. Shahista Bibi and another v. Superintendent Central Jail Mach and 2 others (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 15).
6. Thus, if the benefit of directing the sentences to be run concurrently is denied to the petitioner, the same would brought at naught and ultimately the object of the same would be squarely defeated and that too, under the circumstances when the provision of section 397, Cr.P.C. confers wide discretion on the Court and unfettered one to extend such benefit to the accused in a case of peculiar nature like the present one. Thus, construing the beneficial provision in favour of the petitioner/accused would clearly meet the ends of justice and interpreting the same to the contrary would certainly defeat the same as it is also hard and fast principle relating to interpretation of criminal law, which curtails the liberty of a person that it should be construed very strictly and even if two equal interpretations are possible then the favourable would be extended to the accused and his liberty must be adopted and preferred upon the contrary one.
7. In the cases of Ishfaq Ahmad v. The State (2017 SCMR 307), Shah Hussain v. The State (PLD 2009 SC 460), Khan Zaman v. The State (1987 SCMR 1382), Juma Khan v. The State (1986 SCMR 1573) and Muhammad Ittafaq v. The State (1986 SCMR 1627), the similar benefit was given to the accused while construing the provision of section 35(2) Cr.P.C. Moreover, the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled "Rahib Ali v. The State" (2018 SCMR 418) has held that "High Court and the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under section 561-A read with section 35 or section 397, Cr.P.C. as the case may be, to order multiple sentences awarded in same trial or in separate or subsequent trials to run concurrently. Therefore, in order to deny further ruthless treatment and hardship to the petitioner, he is entitled to the benefit of remissions including both the sentences to run concurrently.
8. In this case, the petitioner has already undergone twenty-four years, one month and seven days of his sentence, so awarded and according to the calculation chart, provided in the jail report, the total period of imprisonment comes to fifty (50) years. In my view, surely and without any fear of rebuttal, the above facts make out the case of detestable hardship, which in no circumstances, shall go unnoticed like in the past. Thus, a strong case has been made out to extend the prayed concession to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this constitutional petition is allowed and it is directed that the sentences awarded to the petitioner in both the cases i.e. FIR No.900/2002 and FIR No.506/2001 shall run concurrently.