ALEEQ SHAH vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court upholding the appellant's conviction and death sentence on two counts for murder under FIR No. 215 dated 2-7-2001 registered at Police Station Hazro, Attock. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court specifically to consider whether the appellant's old age could be treated as a mitigating circumstance to convert the death sentence into imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether advanced age alone constitutes a sufficient mitigating circumstance for sentence reduction in capital cases. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that age by itself does not amount to a mitigating circumstance for reducing a sentence unless accompanied by extreme infirmity or serious sickness at the time of the offense. The Court established the principle that advanced age alone, absent physical infirmity or debilitating illness, does not warrant the commutation of a death sentence.
- Can the old age of a convict be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the conversion of a death sentence to a lesser sentence?
- Does age by itself constitute a sufficient ground for the reduction of a sentence in a capital case?
ORDER
' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The appellant has been convicted in a criminal case, emerging out of F.I.R.
No,215 dated 2-7-2001, registered with Police Station Hazro, Attock, reporting about the occurrence, which took place the same day at about 7-00 p.m. In which Muzaffar Khan and Adil Khan are said to have been done to death by the appellant. The appellant was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death on two counts with compensation of Rs,50,000, to be paid to each legal heirs of the deceased or in default to undergo two years simple imprisonment, by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 12-4-2002. His appeal before the High Court failed on 1-12-2008. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 22-5-2009 to consider, if the old age of the petitioner can be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the conversion of his sentence from death to a lesser.
2. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant, while relying upon the judgments reported as Muhammad Ibrahim v. The State (1979 PCr.LJ 275) and Muhammad Aslam Shah v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 704 has argued that in both the cases, the old age of convict has been so considered and the sentence reduced. However, this Court in judgments reported as Muhammad Sher alias Malang v. The State (PLD 2001 SC 90) and Amir Gul v. The State (1981 SCM R 182) has categorically held that, the age 'by itself' cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of the sentence. In judgments Muhammad Ibrahim and I Muhammad Aslam (supra), cited by learned counsel for the appellant, the convict was suffering from tuberculosis, was sick and infirm person, whereas in judgments Muhammad Sher and Amir Gul (supra), at the time of commission of offence, the convict was of advance age, but this is not so in the present matter, as at the time when the offence was committed, the petitioner was around 59/ 60 years and there is no material about the infirmity or serious sickness of the appellant in which age along thereto can be taken as a mitigating circumstance so as to bring the case within the purview of the judgments cited by the appellant's counsel.
3. Resultantly, we do not find any merits in this appeal, which is hereby, dismissed.