Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2139 2017 SLD 2139 2017 YLR 594
Sindh High Court
Criminal Special Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeals Nos. 46, 47, 32 and 33 of 2015, decision Dated: 5-12-2016, hearing Date : 16-11-2016.
AHMED ALI M. SHEIKH, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD SALEEM, JESSAR, JUSTICE
Ahmed Nawaz for Appellant (in Criminal Special Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeals Nos.46 and 47 of 2015). Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Assistant Prosecutor General for
Respondent (in Criminal Special Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeals Nos.46 and 47 of 2015). Zulfiqar Ali Sha

AMJAD ALI

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal trial--- ----Conviction---Quantum of punishment---Lenient view---Object and scope---Purpose of sentence to maintain a balance thereby attempting to bring peace, harmony and tranquility in the society---Purpose and object of inflicting conviction was either to have reformation or deterrence---Wrongdoer if reformed through punishment could bring fruit for the society---Concept of reformation ,however, did not permit the courts to let hardened criminals---Hardened criminals could not be released in the name of leniency, which would seriously prejudice the other fold of object of punishment---Said fold of awarding punishment was to make a hardened criminal an example for others so that sense prevailed in minds of masses that a criminal would receive his due if he committed a crime---Reformation should not be introduced at the cost of peace, harmony and tranquility of the society as a whole; it was better to have an evil restrained/confined rather to leave him to make whole society a hell. Dadullah v. State 2015 SCMR 856 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Conviction---Quantum of punishment---Lenient view---Object and scope---Tilt of the scale should always be in favour of concept of reformation when it related to first offender and teenager---Such offender was not recognized as desperate or hardened offender. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 384, 385, 386 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7-A---Extortion, putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, common intention and act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---First offender---Prosecution case was that accused persons made telephone call to the complainant and demanded Rs. 2,00,000 as Bhatta under threat of killing---Complainant expressed his inability to pay such huge amount---Accused persons lastly agreed to receive Rs. 30,000 as extortion money---Accused persons who were arrested red-handed at the spot submitted that they would not press the appeals on merits but prayed for taking lenient view as they were first offenders and sole bread earners of their respective…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492