KHALIL AHMED vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant by the Sessions Judge, Sanghar, based solely on the appellant's plea of guilt. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether a trial court can lawfully convict and sentence an accused to death based on a plea of guilt without first issuing a show-cause notice or adhering to mandatory procedural safeguards. The High Court observed that the trial judge acted in 'hot haste' and failed to follow the procedural requirements mandated by law, specifically regarding the acceptance of a guilty plea. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that the conviction and sentence were unsustainable due to the trial court's failure to comply with procedural mandates. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, rejected the murder reference, and remanded the case to the trial court for a de novo trial. The key principle laid down is that a conviction, particularly one involving capital punishment, cannot be sustained if the trial court fails to strictly adhere to the procedural requirements for recording a plea of guilt.
- Can a trial court lawfully award a death sentence based solely on a plea of guilt without issuing a show-cause notice?
- Does a failure to follow the procedural requirements for recording a plea of guilt under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a conviction?
- Is a de novo trial the appropriate remedy when a trial court fails to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards during the recording of a guilty plea?
- Section 302(a), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 243, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---Appellant was convicted by (Mr. Khan Parvez Chang), Sessions Judge, Sanghar vide judgment dated' 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. ' We have perused the impugned judgment and minutely examined the R and Ps of the case.
5. ' Capital punishment was awarded to the appellant solely for the reason that the appellant has admitted his guilt without requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be convicted.
6. Evidently the conviction handed down to the appellant militates against the provisions of section 243, Cr.P.C. Regrettably, the trial Judge acted in hot haste, and proceeded to record judgment warranting death penalty in a cursory, careless, rather over zealous manner. Such disgusting attitude and conduct demonstrated by a Senior Judicial Officer could hardly be approved.
7. ' In the similar circumstances, judgment awarding death penalty was set aside and murder reference was rejected in the judgment delivered in the case of Muhammad Shafquat v. The State reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 1884 authored by one of us (Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J).
8. ' Following the rule laid down .In the above case, impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for de novo trial. The trial Court shall frame a fresh charge against the appellant and proceed with the case strictly in accordance with law.
9. ' For the above reasons, the murder reference is not confirmed.
10. ' The appellant has been produced in custody and is remanded. He shall be produced before the trial Court as and when so ordered.
Cited by 1 case
- ATIF ABAIDULLAH vs STATE PLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Lahore) 848