Pakistan Case Law
2006 YLR 351

KHALID AHMED vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2006 YLR 351
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Cr. Jail Appeal No.D-136 of 2004 and Confirmation Case No.5 of 2004
Date2005-10-26
Judge(s)Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari and Shamsuuddin Hisbani
Authored byMuhammad Moosa K. Leghari
ResultCase remanded
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment by the Sessions Judge, Sanghar, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death solely on the basis of a plea of guilt, without being issued a show-cause notice regarding the plea. The core legal question was whether a conviction and death sentence based on a plea of guilt without proper procedural safeguards such as a show-cause notice is sustainable in law. The Sindh High Court held that the conviction and sentence were against settled principles of law and were not sustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and did not confirm the murder reference.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a conviction and death sentence based on a plea of guilt can be sustained without issuing a show-cause notice to the accused?
  • Is a murder reference confirmable when the underlying conviction is based on a flawed plea of guilt?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 302(a), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
criminal appealplea of guiltdeath sentencemurder referenceshow-cause notice

1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---The appellant was convicted by (Mr. Khan Parvez Chano), Sessions Judge, Sanghar vide judgment ciAted 30-7-2004 in Sessions Case No.97 of 2004, arising out of Crime No.76 of 2004 registered at Police Station, Sanghar.

2. ' The appellant was convicted under section 302(a), P.P.C. He was awarded death sentence only on the basis of his plea of guilt. Apparently the appellant was not given show-cause notice as to why he was pleading guilty.

3. ' Learned A.A.-G. After going through the judgment reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 1884 arising out of the same point, has candidly conceded that the judgment was against settled principle of law, thus it was not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

4. ' For the above reasons, the murder reference is not confirmed.

5. ' The appellant has been produced in custody and is remanded. He shall be produced before the trial Court as and when so ordered.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.