MUHAMMAD FEROZ and another vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from criminal petitions filed respectively by the complainant for enhancement of sentence and by the convict against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the convict's appeal against conviction under F.I.R. No. 63 of 2004 registered at Police Station Mankera District Bhakhar, but reduced the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the propriety of reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment on grounds including that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment and involved a single sota injury. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reduction of sentence was justified, noting the circumstances that the deceased survived for some time, was transported across hospitals during which extensive bleeding occurred, and potentially died due to such bleeding. The Court affirmed that each case turns on its peculiar facts and that mitigating circumstances can warrant a lesser sentence in accordance with constitutional protections. The petitions were accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal declined.
- Whether the High Court is justified in reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment when the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment and a single injury was inflicted?
- Does extensive bleeding during the transportation of an injured person constitute a relevant mitigating circumstance in determining the quantum of sentence?
- Whether each criminal case must be decided based on its own peculiar facts and circumstances regarding the imposition of sentence?
- Article 9, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' The respondent was involved in case F.I.R. No,63 of 2004 which was registered at Police Station Mankera District Bhakhar along with Muhammad Nawaz, Shabbir Hussain and Ghulam Shabbir. The investigating agency investigated the same and submitted the challan to the competent court.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhakhar convicted and sentenced Rab Nawaz by awarding death sentence and compensation amounting to Rs,20,000 to the legal heirs of Niaz Hussain deceased in default to pay the same to undergo six months SI whereas his co-accused were acquitted. The convict filed Criminal No,727 of 2004 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was dismissed to the extent of guilt of the convict but his sentence was reduced from death to life imprisonment vide impugned judgment dated 14-7-2009.
2. The complainant being aggrieved filed Criminal Petition No,1011-L of 2009 for enhancement of the sentence of the convict whereas the convict has filed Jail Petition No,833 of 2006. As both the petitions are arising out of the same impugned judgment, therefore, we intend to decide the same by one consolidated judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned High Court had erred in law to reduce the sentence of the convict the reasoning mentioned that the occurrence had taken place at the spur of the moment and convict had inflicted only one injury to the deceased by sota could not be valid reasons for reduction of sentence. In support of his contention, he relied upon the case of "Kala v.
The State" (PLD 1983 Supreme Court 88). He further submits that there was previous enmity between the parties on the question of inheritance of land as well as on question of return of Sohaga Mundhi of tractor. This reasoning is not valid in the eyes of law in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the said case (PLD 1983 Supreme Court 883).
4. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General has supported the impugned judgment.
5. We have given the anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is admitted fact that the convict had inflicted sota blow on the vital part of the deceased but the deceased survived for some time. The occurrence had taken place at 7-30 a.m. The injured was taken to hospital from the place of occurrence which is situated at seven miles away from the spot and on the recommendation of the Doctor, the injured was shifted from DHQ hospital, Bhakhar from there he was shifted to Nishtar Hospital but he died during the journey. During this period, blood had been oozing from the injured due to which possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased expired due to extensive bleeding. The reasoning given by the High Court in the impugned judgment coupled with this fact are valid. It is settled principle of law that each and every case would be decided on its peculiar circumstances of facts. Reliance has been placed on "Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State" (2009 SCM R 1273). The impugned judgment qua reducing sentence of death is in consonance with law laid down by this Court keeping in view the Article 9 of the Constitution. Reliance has been made on "Muhammad Arshad and 2 others v. State" (PLJ 1995 Supreme Court 684), "Dilbar Masih v. The State" (2006 SCM R 1801) and "Iftikhar Ahmed Khan v.
Asghar Khan and another" (2009 SCM R 502).
7. For what has been stated above, these petitions have no merit IA and the same are dismissed.
Leave declined.