KHALID MEHMOOD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Khalid Mehmood against his conviction and sentence of death. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of death could be awarded by way of Qisas without considering the relevant statutory provisions regarding exceptions and alternatives to Qisas as enumerated in the Pakistan Penal Code. The Court held that the trial court and the High Court had ignored the relevant provisions of law, creating a ground for further examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the contentions raised, converted the petition into an appeal, and ordered it to be fixed for an early hearing, laying down that lower courts must duly consider statutory provisions governing Qisas.
- Can a sentence of death by way of Qisas be awarded without considering the provisions of sections 306(c), 307, and 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the failure of lower courts to consider relevant statutory provisions regarding Qisas causes prejudice warranting interference by the Supreme Court?
- Section 306(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 308, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioner namely Khalid Mehmood and urged with vehemence that the sentence of death could not have been awarded by way of Qisas and the learned trial Court as well as the learned High Court have not diverted their attention to the relevant provisions as enumerated in sections 306(c), 307 and 308, P.P.C. The said contention has been supported by the dictum laid down in case titled Khalil-uz-Zaman v. Supreme Appellate Court (PLD 1994 SC 885). It is also contended that the matter may be remanded so that the above mentioned legal proposition could be dilated upon and decided which has been ignored causing serious prejudice against the petitioner. In so far as the murder of Muhammad Muslim is concerned it is pointed out that the evidence also needs re- evaluation because sentence of death could not have been awarded even in his case.
2. Mr. Sher Awan, learned Additional Prosecutor-General entered appearance for State and while controverting the view point as canvassed at bar by Mr.. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner, supported the judgment impugned but not plausible justification could be furnished that as to why the relevant provisions enumerated in sections 306(c), 307 and 308, P.P.C. Have been ignored by the learned trial Court and learned High Court.
3. In view of what has been mentioned herein above, we are inclined to grant leave, inter alia, to consider the above referred to contentions. The petition is converted into appeal which may be fixed at some early date.
Cited by 1 case
- ZAHID REHMAN , SHEERIN ZAFAR, AMIR KHAN vs The STATE, ZAHID-UR-REHMAN and others, MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others 2015 P.S.C. (Crl.) 190, 2015 PLD Supreme Court 77