Haji MUHAMMAD LATIF vs MUHAMMAD WAHEED alias YASIR and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction for murder. The respondent-convict had killed the deceased after the deceased and his father intervened to stop the respondent from beating a beggar. The respondent, armed with a firearm, shot the deceased in the chest following a verbal confrontation regarding the earlier intervention. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the respondent's conduct, characterized by unprovoked violence and the use of firearms for trivial reasons, warrants leniency. The Court specifically framed the legal inquiry around whether traditional mitigating factors, such as the 'non-repetition of the blow'—historically applicable to blunt weapons like sticks—remain valid considerations in cases involving modern automatic or semi-automatic firearms. Furthermore, the Court seeks to determine whether a 'desperado' who carries firearms in public and commits homicide over petty grievances is entitled to judicial mercy. The appeal was ordered to be heard within six months to ensure timely disposal.
- Does the 'non-repetition of the blow' remain a valid mitigating circumstance in cases involving the use of automatic or semi-automatic firearms?
- Does a person who commits homicide over trivial matters while carrying firearms in public deserve judicial leniency?
- Can the conduct of a perpetrator who kills in response to a victim's intervention on behalf of a third party justify a lenient sentence?
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Waheed convict was beating up a "Faqeer" (a Beggar) in "Tarannum Chowk" at about 10-30 p.m. On 30-171995. The fault of the complainant and his deceased son was that they had rescued the said beggar from the respondent-convict and had asked the said convict not to do such-like things. He did not like it. He came across the deceased after some time and told the said deceased that they had interfered in his matters, and that he would teach them a lesson for it. The deceased went home and informed his complainant father about these threats extended by the convict. The father, along with the deceased son, came to the convict to register his concern about the said threat., They were all unarmed. The convict was still standing in "Tarannum Chowk" and before the complainant party could even open their mouth, the convict fired a shot from his mouser which landed at the front chest of Farid deceased who consequently died paying the price from coming to the aid of a poor, helpless beggar.
2. Is this kind of person or kind of conduct which could invoke some sympathy justifying a lenient treatment for the killer? This question would require serious consideration.
3. The question would also be whether the factum of "non-repetition of the blow" which used to be treated as a mitigating circumstance in the by-gone days when the weapons used were "Dangs" and "Sotas" would be a valid consideration even today when the weapons used are automatic and semi-automatic guns and rifles?
4. Another question which would also require consideration would be whether a person who appeared to be a desparado standing in "Chowks" at night carrying fire-arm weapons and who get flared up to the extent of causing death of others, on trivial things and for petty reasons would deserve any mercy and leniency?
5. To consider these ,questions and others,, we allow this petition and grant leave in the matter.
6. In order to avoid any complications arising out of delay in the disposal of the appeal, we would direct that the appeal be set down for hearing within six months.