Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 154 of 1985, decided on 29th May, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 324‑‑Sentence‑‑Conviction of accused not challenged‑‑‑only reduction of sentence sought‑‑Sentence of co‑accused against whom allegations were identical, having been reduced from two years, to 9 months‑‑Accused, held, should be treated at per with his co‑accused‑ Sentence of accused also reduced from two years to 9 months to circumstances.‑‑[ Sentence].
Agha Taj Muhammad for Petitioner.
Shabbir Lali for the State.
The facts giving rise to this present revision are that Albert Masih and others were tried under Ss. 307/366 and 376/511, P.P.C. by Magistrate Section 30, Samundri. On the conclusion of the trial Mst. Zeenat co‑accused was acquitted but Albert petitioner and Sarwar co‑accused were convicted under section 324, P.P.C. and sentenced to two years' R.I. The appeal filed by the petitioner failed on 1‑11‑1984, hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction. He has requested for reduction in the sentence on the ground that the sentence of Sarwar co‑convict has already been reduced by this Court from two years' R.I. to 9 months' R.I. The learned counsel for the State as not opposed the prayer.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that since the sentence of co‑convict against whom the allegations were identical, has been reduced from two years I to 9 months, the petitioner should also be treated at par with him. The sentence of the petitioner is therefore reduced from two years R.I. to 9 months' R.I.
H.A.K. Revision partly accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer