IMTIAZ @ TAJI and another vs STATE etc_
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a sentence of death for murder. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction was sustainable based on the ocular and medical evidence, and whether mitigating circumstances warranted the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular accounts and medical evidence. However, considering mitigating factors such as a single fire attributed to the appellant without repetition, unproven motive, inconsequential forensic reports, and the compromise leading to the acquittal of co-accused, the Court partly allowed the appeal by upholding the conviction but converting the death sentence into imprisonment for life, alongside extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that mitigating circumstances, including a single unrepeated gunshot and an unproven motive, can constitute sufficient grounds to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment in murder cases.
- Whether a single unrepeated fire attributed to an accused can serve as a mitigating circumstance for converting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Does an unproven motive weaken the prosecution's case regarding the quantum of sentence in a capital charge?
- Whether the acquittal of co-accused on the basis of a compromise can be considered a mitigating factor for the remaining convict?
- Can a criminal petition against acquittal be dismissed on grounds of being barred by time when the explanation for delay is not legally plausible?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Manzoor Ahmad Malik, J. Convict-appellant Imtiaz @ Taji, after a regular trial, was convicted by the trial Court under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to death, besides being convicted and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment, under some other penal provisions, as enumerated in Para 1 of the impugned judgment. The learned High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and maintained his conviction and sentence under the capital charge, thereby answering the murder reference in the affirmative. However , his convictions and sentences under Sections 148, 324 PPC read with Section 149 PPC were set aside. Thereafter; the appellant filed a jail petition, wherein leave was granted by this Court on 20.11.2017. The criminal petition filed by the complainant was ordered to be heard along with criminal appeal arising out of jail petition.
2. Prosecution case against the appellant, as divulged from the contents of FIR, registered on the statement of complainant Tariq Ejaz (PW-10) is that on the fateful day and time, he was present with his father Ejaz Ahmad (deceased) at General Bus Stand, Hafizabad, where the latter was a General Manager . The appellant armed with .244 bore rifle along with his co-accused carrying their respective fire-arms came there Naukar Hussain raised a lalkara . The appellant made a fire with his rifle, which hit on the belly of Ejaz Ahmad. The fire shot by co-accused Sadaqat hit Ejaz Ahmad on his left thigh. During the occurrence, Atif, Tahir Abbas and Tasawar also sustained injuries. Ejaz Ahmad succumbed to injuries later on.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of available record, it has been observed by us that it was a broad daylight occurrence, which has taken place at 02.00 p.m. at General Bus Stand, Hafizabad. The matter was reported to police on the same day at 2.20 p.m. i.e. within twenty minutes of the occurrence, Dr. Nusrat Abbas (PW-8) in his statement recorded du `ring trial stated that he medically examined Ejaz Ahmad @ Jajj Pehalwan on the same day at 3.00 p.m. This circumstance alone is sufficient to exclude any chances of preconcert or premeditation in reporting the matter to police. The ocular account in this case was furnished by Tariq Ejaz (PW-10) and Meer Tahir (PW-11). Tariq Ejaz (PW-10) is the complainant of the case and is the real son of deceased Ejaz Ahmad. He has given sufficient explanation for his presence at the spot at the relevant time. Meer Tahir son of Noor Muhammad (PW-11) used to work at General Bus Stand and sustained fire- arm injuries during the occurrence. Both these witnesses by and large remained consistent on all the material aspects of the case and held the appellant responsible for fire-arm injury on the abdomen of Ejaz Ahmad (deceased). Their statements get support, from the medical evidence adduced by Dr. Nusrat Abbas (PW-8), who medically examined Ejaz Ahmad (deceased), in injured condition and observed a fire-arm wound of entry on left side of front of abdomen. The statement of Dr. Basharat Rasool (PW-16), who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ejaz Ahmad, further affirms the case of prosecution against the appellant. In these circumstances, we have no manner of doubt in our mind that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. However , there are a number of circumstances, which favour the case of appellant for reduction in the quantum of his sentence. Firstly , only a single fire on the person of deceased is attributed to him. It is an admitted fact that he did not repeat the fire. Secondly , a specific motive was alleged by the prosecution inasmuch as some time prior to present occurrence, the accused party had taken over the possession of Gujranwala Stand situated in General Bus Stand, Hafizabad and friction between the parties persisted. On account of that friction, the accused side in order to occupy other stands in the General Bus Stand committed the occurrence. The learned High Court, while reappraising the evidence, has not given any definite finding qua the motive behind the occurrence. On our own independent assessment, it has been observed by us that there is no detail as to when the accused side, on the previous occasion, took possession of Gujranwala Stand; whether the complainant side had reported that matter to police; which was the other stands, the accused side wanted to take possession. No other independent piece of evidence has been produced by the prosecution during trial to substantiate this claim. Moreover , the report of FSL qua 44 bore rifle recovered from the appellant is only to the effect that said weapon is in working condition.
As such, the same cannot be of much help for the prosecution. During the course of arguments, it has been stated by learned counsel for the complainant at the Bar that two co-accused of the appellant namely Sadaqat, and Naukar Hussain, who were ascribed active role during the occurrence in as much as fire shot by Sadaqat hit Ejaz Ahmad (deceased) on his life thigh were acquitted on the basis of compromise. All these circumstance reduction in the quantum of sentence of the appellant from deal to imprisonment for life.
4. For the foregoing, the instant criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC is upheld, however , his sentence of death is converted into imprisonment for life. Benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure is extended to the appellant.
Crl. Petition No. 275-L of 201 1.
5. The instant petition filed by complainant against the acquittal of Respondents No 1 to 3 is barred by time. The reasons assigned in the application for condontation of delay are not legally plausible. Even on merits, it has been observed by us that the findings of acquittal rendered by the learned High Court are neither arbitrary nor capricious or fanciful. Therefore, Crl. M.A. No. 512-L of 2011 is dismissed for being without merit. Resultantly , Crl. Petition No. 275-L of 201 1 is dismissed for being barred by time as well as on merits.
Cited by 17 cases
- Sharab Din Versus State 2026 YLR 1553
- Muhammad Qasim Versus State 2025 YLR 2492
- Muhammad Niaz alias Aalian, The State vs The State, Muhammad Niaz 2025 IHC 402
- Muhammad NIaz alias Aalian Versus State 2025 YLR 2709
- Arshad Hussain vs The State 2024 SHC 1232, 2025 PCRLJ 881
- ARSHAD HUSSAIN Versus State 2025 PCrLJ 881
- Asif alias Asad & three others vs The State & another 2024 LHC 830, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 553, 2024 MLD 1672
- Abid Ali and another, Muhammad Nazir, Muhammad Nazir, The State vs The State and another, Abid Ali 2023 LHC 6634, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 745, 2024 PCRLJ 1252
- NOOR ZAMAN Versus State 2023 PCrLJ 1115
- MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD Versus State 2023 PCrLJ 1054
- The State vs Shakeel Shah 2022 LHC 5220
- MIR MUHAMMAD alias KURARO Versus State 2021 YLRN 96
- ZAQOOM Versus State 2021 MLD 729
- RIAZULLAH Versus State 2020 YLRN 115
- Amin Jan vs The State, etc 2020 MLD 1707, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1201, 2020 PHC 144
- Muhammad Shahzad, etc. vs The State etc. 2022 LHC 6427
- Shahrukh son of Akbar and others vs The State 2025 SHC KHI 2103