MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus SAJID HUSSAIN SHAH
This matter arises from criminal petitions seeking enhancement of sentences and leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court concerning convictions for murder and attempt to murder. The core legal questions involve the justification for altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life and the propriety of the High Court's appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court properly weighed and sifted the evidence without violating any rules of criminal jurisprudence, and that justifiable grounds existed for reducing the death sentence to imprisonment for life. Consequently, both the complainant's petition for sentence enhancement and the convict's jail petition for leave to appeal were dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's appraisal of evidence or the exercise of sentencing discretion unless a clear legal infirmity or violation of evidentiary rules is demonstrated.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's appreciation of evidence in criminal cases without proof of a legal infirmity?
- Can a sentence of death be altered to imprisonment for life when justifiable grounds exist?
- Whether the concurrent findings of the High Court regarding lesser sentences warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.- - The Criminal Petition No.290 of 1986 has been brought by Manzoor Hussain complainant, seeking enhancement of the sentences awarded to the respondents, while Sajid Hussain Shah has sought leave to appeal from the same judgment of the learned High Court against his conviction. Both the petitions are being disposed of by this order.
2. The respondents Sajid Hussain Shah, Noor Hussain Shah and Nayar Hussain Shah, real brothers, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, for offences under sections 302/34 and 307/34, C.P.C., for causing the death of Mukarram Hussain and for attempting the murder of Manzoor Hussain P.W.8. Sajid Hussain accused was sentenced to death with fine under section 302/34, P.P.C. while the other co-accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine. They were also convicted and sentenced to three years' R.I. under section 307/34, P.P.C. with fine for causing injury to Manzoor Hussain. On appeals filed by them, the conviction of Sajid Hussain Shah under section 302/34, P.P.C. was maintained but the sentence of death awarded to him was altered to imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine awarded to him was also maintained. Noor Hussain Shah was sentenced to five years' R.I. under section 325, P.P.C. and Nayyar Hussain Shah was sentenced to three years' R.I. under section 324, P.P.C. The sentence of fine imposed on the said two co-accused was, however, set aside. The conviction and sentences awarded to all the three accused under section 307/34, P.P.C. were also set aside.
3. We heard the learned counsel for Manzoor Hussain petitioner (complainant), who took us through the impugned judgment and the evidence recorded in the case. According to the learned counsel, the conviction and sentences awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge were justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the High Court should not have interfered with the same. In the alternative, it was contended that there were no extenuating circumstances, at least qua Sajid Hussain Shah for the reduction of his sentence from death to imprisonment for life. According to the learned counsel, the said accused had wielded a dagger and caused fatal injury to the deceased Mukarram Hussain Shah.
4. The judgment of the learned High Court shows that the contentions raised on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence were duly examined, evidence was properly weighed and sifted and no legal infirmity can be attributed to the judgment. The learned counsel was unable to show to us that any rule governing appreciation of evidence in criminal cases was violated by the learned High Court. He was also unable to satisfy us that the grounds mentioned by the learned High Court for granting lessor sentences to the accused were not justifiable in law.
As respects the jail petition filed by Sajid Hussain Shah, we find no ground for interference.;
5. In the result, both petitions have no merit and are dismissed accordingly.
M . I . / M-237 / S Petitions dismissed