MUHAMMAD OBAID IQBAL and otherss vs KHADIM HUSSAIN and otherss
This revision petition challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which convicted respondents under sections 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and robbery, while awarding life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. The trial court's rationale for the lesser sentence was uncertainty regarding whose specific gunshot caused the fatality. The High Court expressed dissatisfaction with this reasoning, noting that the respondents acted with a common intention to kill upon resistance during a robbery, resulting in the death of one victim and injury to another. Emphasizing the need for deterrent punishment in heinous crimes and citing Supreme Court precedent regarding the judicial responsibility to award the normal penalty of death in murder cases, the Court issued a show-cause notice to the respondents regarding the potential enhancement of their sentences from life imprisonment to death. The Court further ordered that the respondents remain in custody pending the final disposal of the revision petition and connected criminal appeals.
- Can a trial court award a lesser sentence in a murder case solely on the ground that it is uncertain which specific accused fired the fatal shot?
- Is the High Court empowered to issue a show-cause notice for the enhancement of a sentence from life imprisonment to death in a revision petition?
- Does the existence of a common intention to kill during a robbery justify the imposition of the death penalty even if the specific fatal act is not attributable to a single individual?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 8-3-2003 passed by, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby ' respondents were variously convicted in the case registered vide No,134 of 2001 dated 6-12-2001 under sections 302/396/397, P.P.C. 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 alias 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 on the person of complainant's brother Muhammad Umar Iqbal and in consequence to the firing of the above three respondents the said Umar Iqbal died while Muhammad Hanif received injury. The learned trial Court tried the respondents (along with others) and convicted them under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C.
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 that 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 anybody 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 disposal of this revision petition and the connected matters, In this regard I am fortified with the judgment of the apex Court of the country in the judiciary hierarchy reported in Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Javed PLD 1976 SC 452 wherein, the Full Bench of the Honourable 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 punishment-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 sentence of J and L and repeat same mistake on pretext of equality of treatment."
3. As this revision petition is connected with Criminal Appeal No,317 of 2003 (Rashid Ahmad and others v. State), Criminal Appeal No,716 of 2003 (Riaz Ahmad and others v. State) and Criminal Appeal 438 of 2003 (Saifullah v. State), therefore, all the matters shall be heard together.