CHAND vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for the murder of two individuals. The petitioner, having been convicted under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, did not contest the conviction on its merits but sought a reduction in the quantum of sentence, arguing that he was under 19 years of age at the time of the offense. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to a reduced sentence based on his age. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had successfully established the petitioner's guilt through overwhelming evidence, and the petitioner's plea of self-defense was unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the Court found as a matter of fact that the petitioner was not a minor at the time of the offense. Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that the benefit of lesser age could not be awarded. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined.
- Can a convict claim a reduction in sentence based on age if they were not a minor at the time of the offense?
- Does a plea of self-defense require evidentiary support to be accepted by the court?
- Is a death sentence appropriate when the prosecution has established guilt through overwhelming evidence and the defense of self-defense is not proved?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMD CHAUDHRY, J.---.This petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 13th November, 2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby appeal filed by petitioner challenging his conviction/sentence awarded to him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh vide judgment dated 2nd April, 1998 has been dismissed, as a result whereof murder reference has been accepted.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioner along with co-accused Iftikhar faced trial for the commission of murder of two persons namely Abdul Haq and Abdul Wahid, committed by them on 11th June, 1995 at 11-00 a.m., report of which was lodged at Police Station, Saddar Gojra, Toba Tek Singh, vide F.I.R. No,177, dated 11th June, 1995. After registration of case the accused were arrested and ultimately sent up to face trial. As they did not plead guilty to the charge read over to them, therefore, prosecution led evidence to substantiate accusation against them. On completion of trial, petitioners were found guilty for the commission of offence and vide. Judgment, dated 2nd April, 1998 convicted/sentenced as follows:--
(1) Under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C.--- Sentenced to death on two counts with fine of Rs,30,000 on two counts or in default whereof to undergo two years' R.I. On two counts.
(2) Under section 324, P.P.C.--- Sentenced to five years' R.I. On two counts with fine of Rs,10,000 on two counts and in default whereof to undergo six months' R.I. On two counts.
(3) Under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C.--- Sentenced to two years' R.I. On two counts with direction to pay daman @ Rs,20,000 on two counts.
' Appeal filed by him has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment, as such instant petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset stated that he is not challenging the conviction/sentence of petitioner on merits, however, press for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that at the time of commission of offence, the age of the petitioner was below 19 years.
4. Learned counsel for caveat stated that prosecution has successfully established guilt against the petitioner. Admittedly petitioner was not minor at the time of commission of offence, therefore, except normal penalty of death no other sentence can be awarded to him.
5. We have heard the learned counsel of both the sides and have thoroughly gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence available on record. It may be noted that prosecution by producing overwhelming incriminating evidence has successfully established guilt against the petitioner. Even otherwise, as far as happening of the incident is concerned, it has not been denied by the petitioner because he has taken the plea of self-defence but the same has not been proved on record, as such the trial Court has not believed the same. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction recorded by the trial Court has rightly been maintained by the High Court. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was not minor at the time of commission of the offence, as such he has been convicted/ sentenced according to law, therefore, benefit of lesser age cannot be awarded to him.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons we see no substances in this petition as such same is dismissed and leave declined.
' Leave to appeal declined.