Malik ATTIQUE vs SHOAIB alias LABBA and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the High Court suspending the death sentence of the respondent, Shoaib alias Labba, pending the adjudication of his appeal against conviction for Qatl-i-Amd. The petitioner challenged the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting the suspension. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court acted with legal infirmity or error of jurisdiction in suspending the death sentence of a convict while his appeal remained sub judice. The Supreme Court held that the High Court, being seized of the appeal, possessed the jurisdiction to suspend the sentence. The Court found that the High Court's decision was based on valid considerations, specifically that the ocular account attributed only ineffective firing in the air to the respondent and that the appeal process would likely be protracted. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference with the High Court's exercise of discretion and dismissed the petition, ordering the immediate release of the respondent.
- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to suspend a death sentence while an appeal against conviction is pending?
- Is the suspension of a death sentence by the High Court based on the nature of the evidence and the anticipated duration of the appeal a valid exercise of discretion?
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner is aggrieved by High Court order, dated 11-7-2005 suspending death sentence of respondentShoaib alias Labba in an appeal against conviction and death sentence for committing act of Qatl-i-Amd.
2. Apart from the respondent, Shafqat Hussain, Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Anwar, Zulfiqar Ahmad, Saiful Malook and Bashiran Bibi were tried for the commission of Qatl-i-Amd of them, death sentence was awarded to respondents Shoaib and Muhammad Anwar while Muhammad Sarwar was sentenced to life imprisonment. Co-accused-Zulfiqar Ahmad, to whom active part in the commission of the crime was attributed and co-accused Shafqat Hussain who allegedly fired in air were acquitted by trial Court.
3. Muhammad Anwar, Shoaib and Muhammad Sarwar have appealed against their conviction and sentence which is sub judice before a Division Bench of High Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to state whether acquittal of Zulfiqar Ahmad and Shoaib has been challenged by the petitioner before the High Court.
5. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Afzaal Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Mr. Khurram Latif Khosa, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has appeared for the respondent as well as Chaudhry Muhammad Sadiq, Additional Advocate-General Punjab for the State. The grounds which weighed with the learned Division Bench of the High Court for suspension of sentence of the respondent appear to be that as per ocular account respondent was attributed only ineffective firing in air and that hearing of the appeal would consume a great deal of time
6. After hearing learned counsel, we are satisfied that no ground for interference with the exercise of discretion by the High Court is made out, as it does not suffer from any serious illegality, legal infirmity or error of jurisdiction. Since the High Court is seized with the appeal of the respondent and co-convicts, it cannot be said that by suspending the sentence it acted without jurisdiction.
7. No ground is, thus, made out for the grant of leave. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. As the respondent was taken into custody after suspending the impugned order, he shall be released forthwith.
Cited by 3 cases
- HAZARO alias HAZAR KHAN SHAR vs The STATE 2019 YLR 1620
- ALTAF AHMED vs THE STATE and anothers 2012 P Cr. L J 1760
- MUHAMMAD HANEEF Versus State 2010 PCrLJ 390