Muhammad Ayub son of Muhammad Bux Qureshi vs The State
This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence of Qatl-e-Amd. The appellant was convicted for the murder of three individuals, yet the trial court failed to specify whether the punishment was awarded under Qisas or Tazir, nor did it award compensation to the legal heirs as mandated by law. Furthermore, the trial court failed to specify whether the conviction and sentence were on three separate counts for the three murders, violating the requirement that a judgment must specify the offence and penal section under which an accused is punished. Upon review, the High Court identified these significant legal flaws in the impugned judgment. Given these procedural omissions and the lack of clarity regarding the sentencing structure, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment. The matter was remanded to the trial court with directions to re-write the judgment after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, ensuring compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements regarding sentencing and compensation.
- Is it mandatory for a trial court to specify whether a sentence for Qatl-e-Amd is awarded under Qisas or Tazir?
- Does a failure to award compensation to legal heirs under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a legal flaw requiring the setting aside of a judgment?
- Must a trial court specify separate convictions and sentences for each count when an accused is convicted of multiple murders?
- Can a judgment be set aside and remanded if it fails to comply with the requirements of Section 367(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(a), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 367(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J. The appellant is alleged to have committ ed Qatl-e-Amd of his wife Mst. Saima, his sister-in law Mst. Seema and his brother-in-law Mohsin alias Hassan by cutting their neck with "Churri" for that he was booked and reported upon.
2. On trial, the appellant was found guilty for an offence u/s 302 PPC therefore, was awarded death penalty by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Hyderabad, vide his judgment dated 27.10.2017 which is impugned by the appellant by preferring the instant appe al. Simultaneously , learned trial Court has also made a reference for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the appellant in terms of section 374 Cr .P.C.
3. Heard. Perused the record.
4. It is not specified by learned trial Court as to whether the punishment awarded to the appellant is under Qisas (u/s 302[a] PPC) or Tazir (u/s 302[b] PPC). No compensation is awarded to the legal heirs of the said deceased which is mandatory in terms of section 544-A Cr.P.C. The omission pointed above on the part of learned trial Court could not be overlooked. Be that as it may, the appellant has been found to be guilty for having committed Qatl-e- Amd of three person[s] by learned trial Court, but there is nothing in the impugne d judgment which may suggest that appellant has been convicted and sentenced on three counts for committing three murders, which is against the mandate contained by section 367(2) Cr.P.C, which lay down that the judgment should specify the offence / penal section under which the accused is punished, convicted and sentenced.
5. Learned counsel for the parties when were confronted with the above legal flaws in the impugned judgment were fair enough to concede for the remand of the matter to learned trial Court for re-writing of the judgment.
6. In view of above, the impugned judgment is set aside with direction to learned trial Court to re-write the same after providing chance of hearing to all the concerned.
7. The instant appeal and reference are disposed of accordingly .