SHAUKAT ALI Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM
This matter involves two petitions for special leave to appeal (PSLA) filed by Shaukat Ali against the judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed his revision petitions seeking enhancement of sentence for one respondent and challenging the acquittal of five co-accused in a murder case. The trial court had convicted Muhammad Aslam under Section 304-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting the other five respondents. The core legal questions were whether the conviction of Muhammad Aslam should be altered to Section 304-I and whether the acquittal of the co-accused warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that while the conviction might technically fall under Section 304-I, the ten-year sentence imposed was adequate, rendering an alteration of the conviction unnecessary. Regarding the acquittal of the co-accused, the Court found no flaw in the High Court's appraisal of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, establishing the principle that leave to appeal will not be granted solely to alter a conviction section when the existing sentence remains appropriate in the circumstances.
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal to alter a conviction section if the sentence awarded is already adequate?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment where the High Court's appraisal of evidence is sound?
- Section 304-I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304-II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J. ‑‑This order will dispose of (i) Criminal PSLA No.128 of 1986 filed by Shaukat Ali petitioner against Muhammad Aslam and (ii) Criminal PSLA No.130/86 filed by Shaukat Ali against Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Akram, Wali Muhammad, Abdul Shakoor and Muhammad Sharif, co‑accused (respondents in that petition).
2. All the respondents in the two cases were tried for the murder of Ali Muhammad. The learned trial Court acquitted five accused persons (who are respondents in Crl. P. No. 130 of 1986), but convicted Muhammad Aslam (respondent No.1 in Cr1.P.No.128 of 86) under section 304‑II and sentenced him to .10 years' R.I . Shaukat Ali filed two revision petitions before the High Court one for enhancement of the sentence of Muhammad Aslam and the other against acquittal of the five co‑accused of Muhammad Aslam. Both the revisions were dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgmen t, dated 11‑3‑1986. Hence the present petitions before this Court.
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the plea of the defence is accepted, Muhammad Aslam respondent should have been convicted under section 304‑I, P.P.C., and not under section 304‑II , P . P. C . That is correct, but we are of the view that the sentence (10 years' R.I.) awarded to Muhammad Aslam respondent is adequate in the circumstances of the case. It will, therefore, not serve any purpose to grant leave merely to consider whether the conviction of the respondent in Cr.P. No.128 of 1986 should be altered from section 304‑II, P.P.C. to that under section 304‑I, P.P.C. We, therefore, dismiss Cr.P.S.L.A. No. 128 of 1986 as being without any merit.
4. We now take up Crl. PSLA No.130 of 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any flaw in appraisal of the evidence by the High Court. All the reasons recorded by for upholding the acquittal of the 5 co‑accused‑respondents in this petition are sound. As such it does not call for any interference by this petition. This petition too, is therefore, dismissed.
M. I. /S‑136/S Petitions dismissed.