GUL BADSHAH vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which maintained the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner for the recovery of a massive quantity of narcotics (171 kilograms of Charas, 70 kilograms of opium, and 3 kilograms of Heroin) concealed in secret cavities of a truck driven by him. The petitioner contended that he was innocent, asserting under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 that he had no knowledge of the hidden contraband. He further argued that the extreme penalty of death was unwarranted under the circumstances. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered the submissions and the evidence on record, ultimately granting leave to appeal solely on the question of the quantum of sentence. The Court aimed to determine whether the death penalty was the appropriate punishment or if a sentence of imprisonment for life would suffice to achieve the desired deterrent effect.
- Whether the extreme penalty of death is warranted in cases involving the recovery of a massive quantity of narcotics from a vehicle, or if imprisonment for life is the more appropriate deterrent punishment?
- Can a driver be held to have constructive possession and knowledge of contraband concealed in secret cavities of a vehicle they are driving?
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' RAJA F AYYAZ AHMED, J.---A huge quantity 171 Kilograms of Charas, 70 Kilograms of opium and 3 Kilograms of Heroin was recovered from the truck loaded with bricks being driven by the petitioner from the secret cavities of the vehicle. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNS, Taxila, District Rawalpindi found the petitioner guilty on the charge and was sentenced to death. The record and proceedings of the case were transmitted tothe learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench for confirmation of the death sentence. The petitioner was further directed to pay a fine of Rs,1,00,000 or in default thereof to further undergo RI for one year. He also challenged his conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No,135 of 2006. Vide impugned judgment, the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner has been maintained and the sentence of death confirmed. In consequence, the Murder Reference was answered in affirmative.
Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner claimed to be innocent and took the plea in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. That he had no knowledge being the driver of the vehicle in question that the illicit substances were concealed in the secret cavities of the truck.
Apart from the merits of the case, it has been contended by the learned counsel that extreme penalty of death in the circumstances of the case was unwarranted.
3. The learned DPG states that appropriate punishment has been awarded to the petitioner in view of the huge quantity of the narcotics recovered from the truck being driven by the petitioner at the relevant time.
4. Having considered the submissions put forth on behalf of the parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record with their assistance, we are inclined to grant leave only on the question of quantum of sentence being appropriate punishment awarded to the petitioner or that he could have been punished to imprisonment for life having the effect of deterrence as well.
5. The appeal on the present record be prepared and set down for hearing at an early date.