Sentence already undergone

  1. A legal argument raised by the counsel that convict-appellant has already undergone the legal sentence of 18 years awarded by trial Court — Remissions, earned during his confinement  in jail, placed on record — While calculating the period the convict-appellant has completed the sentence awarded to him but has not so far been released although he has served a sentence of more than 20 years — Trial Court awarded 18 years imprisonment — At the time of announcement of judgment and even before that the convict absconded — But finally was arrested and kept in custody — Held: If remissions earned by appellant are included in period of sentence of 18 years and time he remained absconded is excluded, still a conservative calculation reveals that convict-appellant is in jail for a period of more than 20 years — Whereas after calculating the period of sentence, he had to be released after completion of 18 yeas sentence awarded by the trial Court. Nasrullah v. Shamim Akhtar & 4 others 2009 SCR 470 (A)
  2. Argument that cross-appeal for enhancement of sentence could not be heard when legal sentence of life imprisonment (14 years) or more than that has already been served, has a force and has rightly relied upon the case reported as 2002 SCMR 93 — Cross-appeals dismissed by holding that convict-appellant having already undergone legal sentence of more than 14 years at the relevant time — Held: convict-appellant is entitled to be released forthwith. Nasrullah v. Shamim Akhtar & 4 others 2009 SCR 470 (B)
  3. —Murder appeal—enhancement of sentence—proposition of—See Nani Sultana v. Tanveer Ahmed & others 2022 SCR 615 (A, B, C, D & E)
  4. —Reduction of sentence—sentence already undergone— mitigating circumstances, old and bad health taken into consideration for reduction of sentence and converting into sentence already undergone—Held: There is no doubt that the allegations levelled against accused have been proved by the prosecution beyond any shadow of doubt but at the same time, while awarding the sentence to the accused, there are mitigating circumstances which are to be taken into consideration by the Court as gravity of offence and the age of the accused which thereafter may result into reduction of sentence. It is an admitted fact that the convict- appellant is an old man having age of 77 years, with poor health condition and he has also served substantial part of the sentence as reported by both the course below therefore, for doing to bring justice we deem it proper to reduce the sentence already undergone by him. Muhammad Khalil Khan v. State & others 2022 SCR 1462 (A) 2020 SCMR 1177 Rel.
  5. — murder — contradictions in evidence and dents in prosecution story — High Court reduced the death sentence to 14 years’ simple imprisonment — but not taken into consideration the material dents/flaws in the prosecution story — convict almost served out 14 years’ imprisonment — Supreme Court converted the sentence imposed by High Court into sentence already undergone. Muhamad Bashir & others versus Muhammad Naveed Abbas & others 2023 SCR 1152 (G)
  6. — See Ghulam Sarwar vs Ehtesab Bureau & others 2024 SCR 171(C&D)
  7. — See Ghulam Nabi & others vs Muhammad Shafique 2024 SCR 72 (D&E)
  8.  
error: Content is protected !!