MUHAMMAD RAHIL alias SHAFIQUE vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction and sentence of death. The core legal question presented is whether the petitioner, who claimed to be under 16 years of age at the time of the incident based on his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is entitled to a reduction in sentence from death to life imprisonment, drawing a parallel to the precedent set in Umar Hayat v. Jahangir and another (2002 SCMR 629). The Supreme Court of Pakistan, upon considering the contention regarding the petitioner's age at the time of the occurrence, held that the matter warrants a detailed re-examination of the evidence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle established is that where a substantial question regarding the age of an accused at the time of the commission of an offense is raised, particularly when it impacts the severity of the sentence, the appellate court may grant leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence thoroughly.
- Does a claim of being a juvenile at the time of an offense constitute sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to reappraise evidence regarding the age of an accused in a capital case?
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
It is, inter alia, contended that incident took place on 4-5-1994 whereas statement of petitioner under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded on 8-10-1996 wherein the age of petitioner has been shown as 18 years, as such, on the day of incident he was below 16 years age. In this view of the matter the sentence of death is harsh. In support he relies upon the case of Umar Hayat v. Jahangir and another 2002 SCM R 629 wherein accused Jahangir was sentenced to imprisonment for the life as he was not adult at the time of incident. In view of this, learned counsel vehemently urged that it is a fit case for grant of leave.
2. Accordingly leave to appeal is granted to reappraise the evidence in detail for the safe administration of criminal justice.