MUKHTAR AHMAD Versus AHMAD BAKHS'MUKHTAR AHMAD NAZIR AHMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mukhtar Ahmad against a judgment of the High Court dated 17-11-1985, which had altered the conviction of the respondent Nazir Ahmad from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to Section 304-I and reduced his sentence to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for the killing of his father. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction and reducing the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the reasons recorded by the High Court for altering the conviction and reducing the sentence were sound and that the case was not a fit one for interference. The Supreme Court accordingly refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that the apex court will not interfere with well-reasoned High Court judgments altering convictions and sentences based on proper appreciation of circumstances.
- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the reduction of sentence by the High Court when the reasons recorded are found to be sound?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304-I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J. ‑‑Mukhtar Ahmad petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 17‑11‑1985 whereby it altered the conviction of the respondent from section 302, P.P.C. to one under section 304‑I, P.P.C. and reduced his sentence to 7 years' R.I.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this case Nazir Ahmad respondent had killed his own father Mubarik Ali. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that charge under section 302, P.P.C. had been fully proved against Nazir Ahmad and also that there was no good ground for the High Court to have reduced his sentence.
3. We have gone through the relevant portions of the impugned judgment. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the High Court. The reasons recorded by it for altering the respondent conviction and reducing his sentence are sound. We do not, therefore think it to be a fit case for interference.
Leave is consequently refused.
M.I./M‑427/S Petition dismissed.