A convict serving a seven-year prison sentence for attempted murder has lost his bid to have the term reduced on grounds that his time spent in remand was not considered. The man, convicted under Section 220 of the Penal Code which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment argued that the trial court failed to account for the two years and seven months he spent in remand custody.
Rather than filing a direct appeal, the convict sought a sentence revision from the High Court, claiming the magistrate’s court did not deduct his remand period from the final sentence. However, the High Court dismissed the application, ruling that although the sentencing court did not expressly mention it, the remand period was likely considered, as evidenced by the relatively lenient seven-year term imposed.
The High Court observed that the final sentence was significantly below the maximum provided by law, suggesting that the remand time had indeed influenced the decision. The applicant failed to specify how the trial court had erred or what alternative weight should have been placed on the remand duration.
Dissatisfied with that outcome, the convict escalated the matter to the Court of Appeal. His lawyer submitted that Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates trial courts to deduct pre-sentence custody from the final sentence and that “taking into account” should mean a measurable reduction, not a vague acknowledgment. The legal team also argued that their client qualified for remission benefits.
The State opposed the appeal, noting that the sentence was already lenient for such a serious offence. They also highlighted that no concrete evidence of the remand duration had been provided to the courts. Moreover, the convict’s failure to file a direct appeal choosing instead to seek revision further weakened his case.
The appellate court upheld the decisions of both the trial and High Courts, ruling that there was no clear evidence that the remand time had been ignored during sentencing. The court also pointed out that revision was not a substitute for a direct appeal, which the convict had failed to pursue.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the convict will serve the full seven-year sentence in prison.
