Mushtaque Hussain vs The State through Prosecutor General Sindh
This criminal petition arises from a homicide case where the petitioner, the complainant, challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sindh altering the respondent-accused's death sentence into imprisonment for life for an offense under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence from death to imprisonment for life given the brutality of the crime, and whether the accused could be re-incarcerated after serving his commuted sentence. The Supreme Court held that the petition fails because the respondent has already served out his full sentence of imprisonment for life, inclusive of remissions, and was released from prison. The Court laid down the principle that once a legal sentence of imprisonment for life has been served out by a convict, he cannot be recalled to face capital punishment, as a person cannot be vexed twice for the same offense.
- Whether the High Court was justified in altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life in a murder case?
- Can a convict be recalled to undergo capital punishment after having fully served out a sentence of imprisonment for life inclusive of remissions?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. Petitioner is complainant in a case of homicide, reported vide FIR No.26 dated 29.5.1997 at Police Station Bhitainagar District Hyderabad; it was alleged that on the fateful day, Abdul Rahim accused shot dead Dr. Tanvir Hafeez, no other than his sister-in-law , in the backdrop of some domestic dispute; sent to trial, the accused was returned a guilty verdict; convicted under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, he was sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge Hyderabad vide judgment dated 15.8.201 1, altered into imprisonment for life by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh vide impugned judgment dated 16.6.2021, being assailed on the grounds that given the brutali ty inflicted upon the deceased, awfully reflected by as many as eight entry wounds with corresponding exits, there was no occasion for the High Court to alter penalty of death into imprisonment for life. The bottom line is that the wage settled by the learned trial Judge being most conscionable in circumstances did not warrant reduction and, thus, interference by this Court is most called for .
2. Heard.
3. Be that as it may, the respondent who has not even been arrayed as a party in this petition, as per report submitted by the Superintendent Jail, has since been released on 1.7.2021 after serving out his sentence, reckoned in prison role as 16-years 5-months 1-day , remissions inclusive; it appears that after dismissal of his appeal albeit with reduction in sentence, he had contently retired to his fate. Imprisonment for life is a legal sentence and has already been served out by the petitioner and, thus, enormity of his crime notwithstanding, he cannot be recalled so as to be dispatched to the gallows for the offence he has endured imprisonment for life; there being one life, he cannot be vexed twice. Petition fails. Leave declined.