IQBAL HUSSAIN SHAH vs FAZAL SHAH AND Another
This petition was filed by a private complainant to challenge the reduction of the sentence of respondent No. 1 by the Lahore High Court from death to transportation for life for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reducing the sentence of the respondent on the ground that the complainant-party were the aggressors and had provoked the incident by refusing to stop using a disputed watercourse. The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not act perversely or contrary to principles, as the complainant-party had adopted a defiant attitude, provoked the respondent, and contributed towards the incident. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the reduction of sentence and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that provocation and aggressive conduct by the complainant-party in a property dispute can constitute a mitigating circumstance justifying the reduction of a death sentence to transportation for life.
- Whether provocation and aggressive conduct by the complainant-party can justify reducing a death sentence to transportation for life?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the reduction of a sentence by the High Court when the lower court has provided valid mitigating reasons?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. HAMOUDUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This petition has been filed by a private complainant to challenge the reduction of the sentence of the respondent No. 1, by the Lahore High Court, from death to transportation. The said respondent was charged for the murder of one, Riaz Hussain' and the attempted murder of one, Muhammad Waris, on the 15th of November 1968, a little after sunrise, in the area of village Sheikh Chuhar, Police Station Sadar, Jhang.
2. He was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, convicted of both offences and sentenced to death under section 30 2 and to three years' R. I. Under section 307, P. P. C. Together with a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
3. On appeal and reference, the High Court upheld the convictions but reduced the sentence under section 302, P. P. C. From death to transportation for life on the ground that the conduct of the respondent was "much different from the conduct of a person who pre-plans a cold-blooded murder and executes it by firing on unarmed victims".
4. For coming to this conclusion the High Court has given five reasons. The first is that before firing shots the respondent pleaded with the complainant and his companions not to use his watercourse but the latter, even though they had no right to use the said watercourse, adopted a defiant attitude and abused the respondent in a challenging mood. Even then the respondent at first only threatened thorn with dire consequences with his gun. It was thereafter, when the complainant-party refused to desist and insisted "that since they had started the irrigation they would not stop the same", that the respondent opened fire.
5. It is admitted that the land, over which the watercourse flowed, belonged to one, Saeed Shah, and was cultivated by the brother of the respondent, Fazal Shah. The complainant-party were, therefore, clearly the aggressors. They should have desisted when the respondent threatened them with dire conse--quences. By not doing so they also contributed towards the incident and provoked the said respondent to open fire. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the High Court acted perversely or contrary to principles in reducing the sentence. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere on the ground of sentence only. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.