IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Jail Appeal No. 355 of 2019

Appellants: Aziz-ur-Rehman and Habib-ur-Rehman through Mr. Nadeem Ahmed Azar advocate

The State: Through Mr. Khadim Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearing: 13.10.2022

Date of judgment: 13.10.2022

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- It is alleged that the appellants in furtherance of their common intention caused churri and stick blows to Abdul Wahid, Muhammad Irsahd, Naseeb Zada and Fazal Wahid with intention to commit their murder, eventually, Fazal Wahid died of such injuries, for that they were booked and reported upon. After conclusion of trial, they were convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months; they were further convicted under Section 324 PPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 months with benefit of section 382(b) Cr.P.C, by I-Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Karachi South, vide judgment dated 11.04.2019, which they have impugned before this Court by preferring the instant Jail Appeal.

2. At the very outset, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is nothing in impugned judgment which may suggest as to whether the sentences awarded to the appellants have to run concurrently or consecutively and under instructions, he would not press the disposal of instant jail appeal on merits, provided the sentences awarded to the appellants are ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 382(b) Cr.P.C, which is not opposed by learned Addl.PG for the state.

3. In case of Muhammad Sharif vs. The State (2014 SCMR 668), it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that;

“The offences committed by the petitioner in respect of murder, wrongful confinement and abduction were parts of the same transaction and, thus, ordinarily the sentences passed for such offences ought to have been ordered to run concurrently to each other. It appears that in the judgment under review this aspect of the matter had escaped the notice of this Court. The Suo Motu Review is, therefore, allowed and it is ordered that all the sentences of imprisonment passed against the petitioner shall run concurrently to each other. Disposed of.”

4. In view of above, by considering the facts leading to the incident, it is ordered that the sentences awarded to the appellants by way of impugned judgment to run concurrently, with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.

5. Subject to above, the instant jail appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

JUDGE