SIRAJ DIN vs NAZAR HUSSAIN AND Another
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had restored a death sentence previously reduced to transportation for life by the High Court. The petitioner sought commutation of the restored death sentence, arguing that he was entitled to the benefit of a general amnesty declared by the President of Pakistan on December 23, 1971, and that the restoration of the death sentence after a significant lapse of time violated his acquired expectancy of life. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the amnesty was inapplicable because the petitioner did not stand sentenced to death on the date of the declaration, as the High Court had already set aside the sentence. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument regarding expectancy of life, noting that the petitioner had been on notice since May 1970, when leave to appeal was granted, that the death sentence remained subject to potential restoration. The Court affirmed that no legal grounds existed to interfere with the sentence in review jurisdiction, suggesting the petitioner approach the executive government for clemency.
- Does a general amnesty for death row convicts apply to a person whose death sentence was set aside by the High Court prior to the date of the amnesty declaration?
- Can a convict claim an acquired expectancy of life when an appeal against the reduction of their sentence is pending before the Supreme Court?
- Does the restoration of a death sentence by the Supreme Court after a lapse of several years constitute a valid legal ground for review?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition seeks review of as order made by this-Court on the 29th of April, 1974, whereby accepting Cr. Appeal No. 41 of 1971, we had restored the death sentence passed against the petitioner Siraj Din by the trial Court or. 24-2-1968. The High Court had, while maintaining the petitioner's conviction under section 302/34 P. P. C. For the murder of one Haji Arif reduced his sentence to that of transportation for life. While restoring the death sentence we 'had taken note of the fact that the petitioner had acted in a brutal manner, and there was no extenuating circumstance in his favour, as the abducted woman Mst. Kaniz Fatima was not related to him.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the-petitioner that the death sentence awarded- by -this Court be commuted to imprisonment for life for the following reasons :-
(a) That the President of Pakistan had declared on the 23rd of December 1971, a general amnesty for all those who stood condemned to death on that date, and their sentence were commuted to transportation for life, but the benefit of this amnesty could not be availed of by the petitioner as his death sentence had been set aside in appeal by the Lahore High Court on the 24th of March 1970; and
(a) That the death sentence was originally awarded by the trial Court on 24-2-68, and its restoration by this Court after lapse of six years was not justified, as in the meantime, the petitioner had acquired an expectancy of life under the appellate order of the High Court dated the 24th of March, 1970.
3. We find that the grounds urged by the learned counsel are not tenable in law. The general amnesty declared by the President of Pakistan on 23-12-71 applied only to those convicts who stood sentenced to death on that date, but A the petitioner was not one of them, as his sentence of death had already been set aside by the High Court on 24-3-70. He was, therefore, not covered by the terms of the amnesty.
4. As regards the expectancy of life, we notice that soon after the death sentence was set aside by the High Court on 24-3-70, a petition for leave to appeal was filed in the Court by the complainant in May, 1970, praying that the sentence of death be restored. Leave to appeal was granted in this petition in October 1970, and since then the 'petitioner had full notice that his death sentence might be restored any moment. It was in fact restored on 29-4-74. It is true that this order has been made by this Court more than six years after the sentence of death was imposed by the trial Court, and fours years after it was set aside by the High Court, yet all along the petitioner had notice that such a contingency might arise. -. For the foregoing reasons we consider that the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner do not justify interference by us, in the exercise of our review jurisdiction, with a legal sentence passed by this Court, but the petitioner may, if so advised, approach the executive Government in this behalf.
5. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- SIKANDAR HAYAT Versus State 2020 PLD 559
- MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ HUSSAIN and another vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 2 2001 P Cr. L J 225
- FAIZ ALI SHAH vs THE STATE 1989 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 61