RASHID ALI vs THE STATE
This jail petition arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed his conviction and death sentence for the murder of a fellow Lance Naik. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel did not contest the conviction but confined his arguments to the quantum of sentence, contending that an altercation during breakfast constituted grave and sudden provocation, thereby depriving the petitioner of self-control. The State argued that the altercation was minor and did not constitute grave provocation. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and the precedents cited, held that for the safe dispensation of justice, a reappraisal of the evidence was necessary solely on the question of the quantum of punishment. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the death sentence was appropriate or if the petitioner deserved a lesser sentence.
- Whether a minor altercation or exchange of words between the accused and the deceased prior to the incident can support a plea of grave and sudden provocation?
- Can leave to appeal be granted by the Supreme Court solely for the purpose of reappraising evidence on the quantum of sentence?
- Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.--- This jail petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 3-10-2007 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Criminal Appeal No,69 of 2007/Confirmation Case No,3 of 2007.
2. The petitioner was convicted by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central for committing the murder of deceased Lance Naik Inayat Ali, Petitioner was the Lance Naik serving in Company 72-Wing Sachal Rangers Camp, Shahid Shaheed Park, situated at Block No,6FB Area. He assailed his conviction by way of appeal before the High Court. The trial Court also forwarded the case for confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence under section 374, Cr.P.C. The appeal and confirmation case were heard and disposed of by the impugned judgment. The appeal was dismissed and Confirmation Case No,3 of 2007 was accepted affirming the conviction and death sentence. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the petitioner has assailed his conviction by way of this jail petition.
3. We have heard the arguments of Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the State.
4. Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned. Advocate Supreme Court did not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and confined his arguments to the extent of quantum of sentence. He submitted that both the learned A Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court of Sindh did not give due importance to the material on record from which it could be established beyond any doubt that the petitioner at the time of causing the death of deceased Lance Naik Inayat Ali was ceased of mental power and self-control as some altercation had taken place between him and deceased Lance Naik Inayat Ali which in the circumstances of the case could be taken as grave and sudden provocation. To substantiate his arguments he drew our attention to the contents of the F.I.R. As well as to the judicial confession of the petitioner wherein exchange of words/altercation between the petitioner and the deceased had been refetred to during the course of serving breakfast. Mr. M.
Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court also referred us to the cases of (i) Ali Muhammad son of Noor Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad son of Wali Muhammad and another PLD 1996 SC 274 and (ii) Abdul Haq v. The State and another PLD 1996 SC 1 and submitted that in view of the pronouncement made in the aforesaid cases even exchange of words or simple altercation between accused and the deceased prior to the incident would be a circumstance which would provide the defence of grave and sudden provocation.
5. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is no evidence on material on the basis of which it could be presumed that the petitioner was acting under grave or sudden provocation or that he was not fully in control of his senses and capacity to understand the gravity of his act when he fired at the deceased and submitted that the incident referred to by learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner was not of such serious or grave nature which would provide provocation to any person, what to say grave provocation. He supported the judgment of the High Court and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner was entitled to be awarded death sentence.
6. We have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner and are of the view that for safe dispensation of justice it will be proper that evidence be re-examined/reappraised solely on the question of quantum of punishment. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to reappraise the evidence only to decide whether the death sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court was rightly awarded or the petitioner warrants a lesser punishment.