Case law on death penalty in Pakistan Jail Appeal Sazai moat se 17 saal saza kese hoi ? Supreme Court Judgement
 |
| Death penalty converted into 17 years lmprisonment |
 |
| Qatal /death penalty converted into 17 years imprisonment |
Ffor more information call or Whatsapp 03244010279
Supreme court judgement about If qatal happened as a sudden provocation death penalty not attracted. |
Brief facts
- Qatal achanak ishtaal angaizi ki wajah se hoa tha
- Qatal workshop main hoa tha jaha per maqtool apna tractor thk karwane gia tha
- Jhgra us raqam ki wajah se hoa tha ju tractor ko thk karne ke liye adaa karni thi.
- Or Shahdaton se sabat hoa tha ke mudai or mulzam ke darmian koi purani dushmani nahi thi.
- Na hi mulzam ne pe darpe war kiye the or aik war hoa tha jiss se death hu gai thi
- Trial court ne sazai moat or 300000 (3 lakh) ki compensation ka hukam dia tha.
- High court ne sazai moat ko umar qaid main badal dia magar compensation barqar rakhi
- Start main mulzam ke wakil ne bahas me nuqta uthaia tha ke 302 nahi banti hai.
- Because ke mamla lain dain ka tha.
- Jiss ke baad Supreme court ne perimeters discuss kiye ke 302 ke liye zaroori hain.
- Ye baat confirm thi ke qatal bghar kisi sabqa plan ke hoa tha
For more information call or Whatsapp 0324-4010279
popular Articles
Judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Present:
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood
Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan
Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail
Criminal Appeal No. 506 OF 2020
(Against the judgment dated 10.02.2017 of the
Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. A.
No. 1362 of 2013 and M.R. No. 303 of 2013)
Muhammad Ajmal
Appellant
Versus
The State
Respondent
For the appellant:
Raja Rizwan Ibrahim Satti, ASC
For the state:
Mr. Muhammad Usman, Addl.P.G., Punjab
For the complainant:
Raja Shafqat Abbasi, ASC
Date of Hearing:
07.10.2021
JUDGMENT
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J. The appellant Muhammad Ajmal
faced trial in case FIR No. 278 dated 19.03.2010, offence under section
302 PPC, registered at police station Shorkot City, District Jhang. On the
conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang vide judgment dated
11.09.2013, convicted the appellant under section 302 (b) PPC and
sentenced him to death, with a direction to pay compensation of
Rs.300,000/-, in terms of section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure,
which shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Aggrieved of his
conviction and sentence, the appellant filed a criminal appeal before the
Lahore High Court, Lahore. A murder reference was sent by the learned
trial court for confirmation or otherwise of sentence of death of appellant.
Through the impugned judgment, the learned High Court dismissed the
criminal appeal and by converting sentence of death of the appellant into
imprisonment for life, answered the murder reference in the negative.
Benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure was extended to him.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a jail petition before this court, wherein leave
was granted on 20.08.2020. Hence, the instant criminal appeal.
2.
Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset contends that
leave was granted on the point that whether the case of the appellant
comes with the parameters of section 302 (c) PPC or not, hence he will
confine his arguments only to that extent. Learned counsel for the
Crl. A. No.506/2020
2
complainant contends that motive has been explained during trial and
even in the FIR a dispute of “lain dain” was mentioned; further contends
that appellant committed the murder in his own shop hence no further
leniency can be extended to him. Learned counsel for the complainant
relied upon the cases reported as Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri Vs.
The State and others (PLD 2016 SC 17), Muhammad Asif Vs.
Muhammad Akhtar and others
(2016 SCMR 2035) and Sardar
Muhammad and another Vs. Athar Zahoor and others (2017 SCMR
1668).
3.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab as well as the learned counsel for
the complainant and perused the available record with their assistance.
Before discussing the facts of the present case we would like to discuss the
parameters which attracts section 302(c) PPC.
An offence under section 302 (c) PPC will be attracted only in those
cases, where exceptions to old provision of section 300 PPC stand
attracted. Exception 4 of old section 300 PPC is reproduced as under: -
“Exception 4:- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of
passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender’s having
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation: It is immaterial in such cases which party offers
the provocation or commits the first assault.
So bringing the case under the above exception (culpable homicide not
amounting to murder). It is required to be established that the case was
one of sudden fight, taken place without any premeditation in the heat of
passion upon a sudden quarrel and offender had not taken any undue
advantage and must had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
4.
In the case of Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad and another (PLD
1996 SC 274) it was held that there should be no doubt that the cases
covered by the exceptions to the old section 300 PPC read with the old
section 304, therefore, are cases which were intended to be dealt with
under clause (c) of the new section 302 of the PPC. Likewise in the case of
Azmat Ullah v. the State (2014 SCMR 1178) it was held that :
“It has already been held by this Court in the case of Ali
Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad and another (PLD 1996 SC 274)
that the cases falling in the exceptions contained in the
erstwhile provisions of section 300, P.P.C. now, attract the
provisions of section 302(c), P.P.C. The case in hand was surely
a case of lack of premeditation, the incident was one of a
sudden fight which was a result of heat of passion developed
upon a sudden quarrel and no undue advantage had been
taken by the appellant nor had he acted in a brutal or unusual
manner. In these circumstances Exception 4 contained in the
Crl. A. No.506/2020
3
erstwhile section 300, P.P.C. squarely stood attracted to the
case in hand and, thus, the case against the appellant fell
within the purview of the provisions of section 302(c), P.P.C.”
The new section 302 itself divides qatl-i-amd for the purpose of punishment
into three categories i.e.
a)
qatl-i-amd, punished with death as qisas;
b)
qatl-i-amd, punished with death or imprisonment for life as ta’zir
c)
qatl-i-amd, punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extended to twenty-five years, where according to
the injunctions of Islam the punishment of qisas is not applicable.
Admittedly, in the present case, parties were not inimical to each
other and there was no previous ill will between the deceased and the
appellant. In the FIR it is specifically mentioned that during repairing the
tractor of the deceased, altercation took place between the deceased and
appellant due to dispute of money. So at the spur of moment, suddenly
altercation took place and according to prosecution’s own case, there were
exchange of abuses between both of them and then Muhammad Ajmal
appellant picked up a hatched lying in the shop and gave a solitary blow to
Muhammad Naeem Khan deceased. Mehmood Khan, complainant while
appearing in the court also categorically mentioned that “during repair of
tractor there was altercation between Naeem Khan and Ajmal accused
present in court on the transaction of some amount. Abusive language was
used between them.” The whole prosecution during investigation remained
silent regarding the detail of “lain dain” and an evasive motive was put up
in the FIR but during trial Mehmood Khan made improvement that
actually Ajmal appellant was under debt of Naeem Khan due to which this
occurrence took place. He was duly confronted with his application Exb-PF
(through which FIR was chalked out) where this fact was not mentioned.
The said Mehmood categorically stated that: -
“We visited workshop of the accused for repair of our
tractor for the first time, on the date of occurrence”.
The other alleged eye witness Changaiz Khan also stated as under: -
“There was altercation and exchange of abusive
language between Naeem Khan and Ajmal accused. All of
sudden Ajmal after picking hatchet from his workshop made
hatchet blow hitting on left side of the neck of Naeem Khan.”
The above mentioned evidence of both the witnesses clearly indicate that
the deceased went to the workshop of appellant, for repair of tractor, for
the first time and in the absence of any previous ill will or grudge, at the
spur of the moment due to “lain dain” probably regarding the payment of
work done, by the appellant by repairing the tractor, suddenly there was
Crl. A. No.506/2020
4
altercation, followed by exchange of abusive language between the
appellant and deceased, all of a sudden this occurrence took place
indicating that there was no premeditation and at the spur of the moment
due to abusive language, in the heat passion, appellant gave a solitary
blow with the hatched which was lying there. He did not repeat the blow
although deceased was lying on his mercy. He did not take undue
advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner. So all the ingredients of
above exception are born out from the prosecution cases and his case falls
under section 302 (c) PPC. All the parameters mentioned above clearly
indicate that it is a case falling under section 302 (c) PPC and not section
302 (b) PPC. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the
complainant have different facts and in these cases the ingredient of
Exception 4 of section 300 (old) PPC were not born out. In the case of
Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri (supra) this issue was not discussed
likewise in the case of Muhammad Asif (supra) the accused while taking
undue advantage gave successive blows to the deceased and also injured
complainant and a passerby whereas in the case of Sardar Mahmood and
another (supra) no ingredient of above exceptions were present nor born
out from the prosecution case whereas in the present case as already
discussed, ingredient of Exception 4 of section 300 PPC (old) are born out
from prosecution’s case. Consequently, this criminal appeal is partly
allowed. The conviction of the appellant is converted from section 302 (b)
PPC to section 302 (c) PPC and his sentence is reduced to seventeen years
R.I.. The compensation and sentence in default thereof awarded by the trial
court and upheld by the High Court shall remain intact. Benefit of section
382-B Cr.P.C. shall also remain intact.
Judge
Judge
Judge
Bench-II
Islamabad
07.10.2021
(Atif)
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.
Judge
Latest Judgement of Acquittal of Lahore High court in Murder Appeal
کمپیوٹر آپریٹر فرنٹ ڈیسک جو FIR پرنٹ کرتا ھے کو بطور گواہ پیش کرنا ضروری ھے۔
There is delay in reporting the incident and lodging the FIR. Delay in lodging the first information report often results in consultation and deliberation, which is a creature of an afterthought------------
Admittedly, statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. of the complainant was not incorporated in the register for FIRs registration----------
Moharrar deposed during examination-in-chief that on receiving the oral complaint (Ex. PF), endorsed and dispatched by Sajjad Hussain SI/HIU, he dictated the FIR (Exh.PF/1) to the Computer Operator, who typed it without any addition or deletion.-------The prosecution has not produced the Computer Operator to whom dictation was given by Moharrar, and he typed the FIR (Exh.PF/1)-----------
According to Rule 24.5 of Police Rules 1934, the F.I.R. shall be filled in the printed Form in Form 24.5 (1) with pages serially numbered with three carbon copies (each of the four pages of the register bearing the same serial number) since the oral complaint (Ex.PF) was not recorded in the first information report register it throws doubt on the time of reporting the incident to the police.--------------
The copy of the FIR entered in the first information report register is not being exhibited by the prosecution-----------
The evidential value of the First Information Report will be reduced if it is made after the unexplained delay, particularly when the same was not entered in the printed Form 24.5 (1) of Police Rules 1934----------------
The prosecution also failed to prove the time and place where Saddam Khalid (the deceased) took his last breath-----------The prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses and the prosecution failed to establish their presence at the place of occurrence-------------------The FIR was recorded later after due deliberations and consultations and then ante-timed to give it the color of a promptly lodged FIR---------The prosecution did not explain the delay in conducting the postmortem examination---------In such eventuality it is not possible to uphold and sustain the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant------------Resultantly, appeal is allowed.
Crl. Appeal
193932/18
Ali Ahsan Sunny Vs The State etc
Justice Miss Aalia Neelum 22-05-2023
2023 LHC 2869
Comments
Post a Comment