RASHID ALI vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, a member of the Rangers, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a co-employee using an official G-3 rifle. The conviction was based on eyewitness testimony and a judicial confession. Leave to appeal was granted solely to consider the quantum of sentence. The core legal question was whether the appellant's act of shooting the deceased following a minor altercation and a time lapse of approximately 45 minutes warranted a reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appellant, belonging to a disciplined force and acting with recklessness after sufficient time to cool down, was not entitled to any leniency. The appeal was consequently dismissed, and the death sentence was upheld. The key principle laid down is that members of disciplined forces who commit premeditated murders with state-issued weapons after adequate time for reflection cannot invoke sympathy to mitigate the death penalty.
- Whether the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment when the murder is committed by a member of a disciplined force after a lapse of time following a minor complaint?
- Does a judicial confession detailing the motive for a murder preclude the reduction of a death sentence?
- Is a member of a disciplined force who uses an official weapon to kill a colleague entitled to leniency on the ground of provocation after a cooling-off period?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---In the occurrence in question, one Rashid, a Naik in the Rangers, had fired at a co-employee of the Rangers, namely, Inayat, Naik with his official G-3 rifle killing him at the spot. The occurrence had been witnessed by the complainant Hawaldar Ameer Haider (P.W.I), Naik Asghar Ali (P.W.2) and Lance Naik Noor Muhammad (P.W.3). On the strength of the testimony offered by the natural and independent witnesses and also on account of the judicial confession made by him that he was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And was punished with death which sentence was then confirmed by the High Court. Leave to appeal had been granted to consider only the quantum of punishment deserved by the said appellant.
2. The eye-witnesses could not throw any light on the reason which had led Rashid appellant to shoot at Inayat deceased. However, it was the said appellant himself, through his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., who had given the said reason leading to the said murder. The appellant had explained that Inayat deceased had made a false complaint against him to Ameer, Haider Hawaldar (P.W.1) saying that the appellant was refusing to carry the breakfast for the other soldiers in defiance of the instructions of Inayat deceased. The appellant added that after this false complaint had been made by Inayat deceased, he and the said deceased continued serving breakfast to the other members of the staff and it was at about 6-45 a.m. When they were returning to the barrack that the appellant lost his head and felt annoyed with Inayat deceased, who had levelled false allegations against him; that the appellant saw the said deceased coming from the other side which further enraged him whereupon he picked up his official G-3 rifle and fired shots at the said deceased.
3. The conduct and act of the appellant, who belonged to a disciplined force and was entrusted with an official assault rifle meant for the purposes of the State, in showing such a recklessness and callous and disregard for a colleague and that also not on an immediate reaction to the allegedly false complaint but after almost 45 minutes of the making of the said allegedly false complaint when he had time to cool down, is not a type of conduct which could invoke sympathy or leniency for him. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the imposition of the said sentence of death as confirmed by the High Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- ALI JAN Versus State 2023 PCrLJ 247
- Muhammad Arif vs Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Karachi West and 2 2020 YLR 1586
- MUHAMMAD MOOSA Versus State 2020 PCrLJN 124