MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus MUHAMMAD JAN
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 23rd April, 1984, whereby the respondent's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code was maintained, but his sentence was reduced from death to life imprisonment. The prosecution case is that the respondent murdered the deceased with a chhuri following an earlier altercation over a cloth purchase transaction. The High Court reduced the sentence based on the conjecture that the deceased must have provoked the respondent during the encounter. The core legal question is whether the High Court's reasoning and conjecture for awarding a lesser penalty are sustainable based on the evidence on record. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to examine the sustainability of the reasons given by the High Court for the commutation of the death sentence. The principle laid down is that sentence reduction cannot be based on mere conjectures unsupported by the record.
- Whether the reason given by the High Court for awarding a lesser penalty to the respondent is sustainable in the light of the evidence on the record?
- Can a sentence of death be reduced to imprisonment for life based on a conjecture of sudden provocation without supporting evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.- -This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Akram complainant-petitioner and is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 23rd April, 1984 whereby while maintaining the conviction of Muhammad Jan respondent under section 302, P.P.C., his sentence was reduced from death to that of life imprisonment.
2. Briefly the facts are that Muhammad Jan respondent was tried on a charge under section 302, P.P.C. for the murder of Irfan Ilahi his ca-villager and vide judgment dated 18 June, 1981 of the Sessions Judge, Sialkot he was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to death plus fine.
3. The prosecution case is that Muhammad Akram petitioner had a cloth shop in Main Bazar Zafarwal. On 14th August, 1980 Muhammad Jan respondent purchased cloth from the deceased who is son of Muhammad Akram petitioner. As he did not cut the cloth in a straight line, there was shortage of cloth. When Muhammad Jan respondent discovered the fault he came back to the shop and there took place an altercation between the two of them. However, the matter was patched up when Muhammad Akram petitioner alongwith others separated them and gave him one rupee as compensation. But Muhammad Jan respondent is said to have left with a threat to avenge the insult. The prosecution story further is that on the following day Muhammad Jan respondent appeared while the deceased was proceeding alongwith his father and two other eye-witnesses to the mosque for offering Juma prayers, and taking out a Chhuri he caused injuries to the deceased in the chest and on the arms which resulted in his death. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Akram petitioner, Muhammad Rashid and Ghulam Hussain PWs. Human blood-stained Chhuri was also recovered from Muhammad Jan respondent. According to the medical evidence the deceased had six incised injuries on his person. Muhammad Jan respondent had a superficial incised wound on the palm of the right hand and a superficial abrasion on the right elbow.
4. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is admitted that Muhammad Jan respondent had caused injuries to the deceased and thus murdered him. It is also finding of the High Court that the superficial injury on the palm sustained by Muhammad Jan respondent was likely to have been suffered by him when he repeatedly attacked the deceased with the Chhuri. The superficial abrasion on his right elbow was suffered when he was apprehended at the spot. Yet while maintaining the conviction of Muhammad Jan respondent under section 302, P.P.C. the High Court altered his sentence from death to imprisonment for life merely on the conjecture that the deceased must have said something to Muhammad Jan respondent which enraged him and that the conversation which might have taken place between the deceased and Muhammad Jan respondent could have not been heard by the eye-witnesses. Learned counsel submits that there is nothing on the record on the basis of which this conclusion could be drawn.
5. We grant leave in this case to consider as to whether the reason given by the Lahore High Court for awarding lesser penalty to Muhammad Jan respondent is sustainable in the light of the evidence on the record.
6. S. Q./M-312/S Leave granted.