ABDUL RAZZAQ vs ALLAH YAR and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking the enhancement of a life imprisonment sentence to a death sentence for a murder conviction. The respondent was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, having inflicted a single injury with a Chhuri. While the trial court and the High Court accepted the ocular account and rejected the defence plea, the High Court declined to enhance the sentence, citing that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment without premeditation and involved only a single blow. The petitioner challenges this refusal to enhance the sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the respondent was correctly sentenced in accordance with established legal principles regarding the imposition of the death penalty versus life imprisonment in cases of murder, specifically addressing whether the mitigating factors cited by the High Court justify the lesser sentence.
- Whether a sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate for a murder committed with a single blow at the spur of the moment?
- Does the absence of premeditation justify the imposition of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty in a murder case?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to consider the enhancement of a sentence imposed by the High Court?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
M. JAVED BUTTAR J.---The petitioner, through this petition is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 18-10-2005 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers, Lahore High Court, whereby petitioner's Criminal Revision No,590/2004 for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.
2. Respondent No,1, Allah Yar stands involved in case F.I.R. No,418, dated 8-6-2002, registered at Police Station, Saddar, District Faisalabad for an occurrence of the same day at 3.30 p.m. In which Liaqat Ali deceased was killed for having suffered a single injury, which was attributed to respondent No,1, who was allegedly armed with a Chhuri. The trial Court, convicted respondent under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence have been maintained by the High Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also seen the available record.
4. It is a day time occurrence. The only injury suffered by the deceased is attributed to respondent No,
1. Both the Courts below have disbelieved the defence plea and believed the ocular account, the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence and the promptness with which the F.I.R. Was lodged yet, no cogent reasons have been given for not awarding the normal penalty of death for murder of the deceased. The learned Judge of the High Court, as regards the sentence, has not enhanced the sentence on the ground that the occurrence had taken place at the spur of the moment and not in a preplanned manner and only single blow with Churi was caused to the deceased.
5. Leave is granted to consider whether respondent No,1, Allah Yar has been correctly sentenced in accordance with the law laid down by this Court.