MUHAMMAD OBAID IQBAL vs KHADIM HUSSAIN and others
This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 8.3.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby respondents were convicted under Sections 302/396/397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerns the propriety of awarding a lesser sentence of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty where multiple armed offenders committed robbery and murder, and whether the High Court should issue a show-cause notice for enhancement of sentence. The court held that the trial court's reason for awarding a lesser sentence—that it could not be said with certainty whose specific fire hit the deceased—was unsatisfactory given that the offenders acted with a common intention to kill upon resistance. Consequently, the court issued a show-cause notice for the enhancement of sentences from life imprisonment to death and ordered that the respondents remain in jail pending final disposal. The key principle laid down is that courts must not hesitate to award deterrent punishments in heinous crimes involving armed robbery and murder, and laboured pretexts to alter death sentences to life imprisonment must be avoided.
- Whether a trial court is justified in awarding a lesser sentence of life imprisonment merely because it cannot be determined with certainty whose specific shot caused the death during a joint armed robbery?
- Can the High Court issue a show-cause notice for the enhancement of a sentence from life imprisonment to death in a criminal revision petition?
- Are convicts who committed murder during an armed robbery required to be kept in jail until the final disposal of a revision petition seeking sentence enhancement?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the judgment 8.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, wherebe respondents were variously convicted in the case registered vide FIR No, 134/2001 dated 6.12.2001 under Sections 302/396/397 PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997; Police Station Yakki Gate, Lahore
2. During the course of arguments it transpired that three respondents, namely, Ghazanfar Ali @)
Pappu son of Khurshid Ahmad Asghar Ali son of Allah Ditta and Riaz Ahmad Virk son of Muhammad Malik, while armed with fire-arms, committed robbery of Rs, 87,00,000/- the person of complainant's brother Muhammad Umar Iqbal and consequence to the firing of the above three respondents the said Umar Iqb died while Muhammad Hanif received injury. The learned trial Court tried the respondents (alongwith others) and convicted them under Section 302(b)/34 PPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life each. The reason given by the learned trial Court for awarding lesser sentence is that it cannot be said with certainty shat whose fire hit the deceased. I am not satisfied with the above reason of the learned trial Court because the said respondents, while armed with fire-arms, had come to the spot with the intention that if any body would resist, he shall be done to death and in consequence of their above act an innocent person was not only robbed from huge amount but also done to death and one Hanif, on resistance, was seriously injured. Such like offences in the society are at peak, people are not safe not only inside their houses but also on the roads, so, I am inclined to issue a show-cause notice to all the above three Respondents that why their sentences may not be enhanced from life to death, if case is ultimately proved against them. They shall not be released from jail till the final dispose of this revision petition and the connected matters. In this regard I am fortified with a judgment of the Apex Court of the country in the judiciary hierarchy reported in Muhammad Sharif vs. Muhammad Javed (PLD 1976 Supreme Court 452) wherein, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Court held as under:-- "(c) Murder case--Courts, responsibility of--Inhibition or hesitation on part of trial Court in awarding normal penalty of death--Marked tendency to find laboured pretext to alter death sentence to life imprisonment--sanctity of human life--Pros and cons of doctrine--Necessity of awarding deterrent punishment7- Effect of marked propensity to avoid death penalty or to allow commutation in appeal followed by frequent remission of sentences--Factors indirectly contributing to incidence of heinous crime--Responsibility of Courts.
(e) Murder case--sentence--Extenuating circumstances--sentence-There may be a host of extenuating and mitigating circumstances such as extreme youth, sudden provocation, influence of an elder, question of family honour etc, justifying the award of the lesser penalty of life imprisonment based on a chain of judicial pronouncements offering useful guidelines.
(f) Sentence--High Court commuting death sentence of J and L on ground of former being a lad of 18 years and role attributed to latter being not distinguishable from that of other convicts who had been leniently treated in award of sentence--Held. Trial Court even if erred in awarding lesser sentence to N against which two revisions one by State and other by complainant were pending in High Court, error would have been more appropriately rectified by enhancing sentence of N to death rather than reducing instead death sentences of J and L and repeat same mistake on pretext of equality of treatment".
3. As this revision petition is connected with Crl. A. No: 317/03 (Rashid Ahmad etc. vs. State), Cr1. A.
No, 716/03 .(Riaz Ahmad etc. vs. State) and Crl. A. No, 438/03 (Saifullah vs. State), therefore, all the matters shall be heard together.