SALEEM RAZA Versus TARIQ RASHID
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Saleem Raza, seeking the enhancement of sentences imposed on respondents Tariq Rashid and Liaqat Ali from life imprisonment to death for the murder of Saifur Rahman. The respondents were convicted by the trial court under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after being found guilty of inflicting fatal dagger blows on the deceased following a sudden confrontation on a public road. The trial court's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were affirmed by the Lahore High Court in a revision application, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The central question before the Court was whether the High Court erred in maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment instead of awarding capital punishment. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, holding that since the murder was not premeditated but stemmed from a sudden flare-up triggered by the deceased's unexpected intervention, sufficient extenuating circumstances existed to justify the lesser sentence. Consequently, the leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.
- Whether a sudden flare-up without premeditation constitutes a valid extenuating circumstance for mitigating a sentence from death to life imprisonment?
- Can a court maintain a sentence of life imprisonment instead of capital punishment where the murder arises out of an unprovoked or unexpected altercation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑ The petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13‑4‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby his Criminal Revision No.544 of 1979 against the judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore dated 30‑4‑1979, for the enhancement of sentences of life imprisonment on the respondents Nos.1 and 2, for the murder of Saifur Rahman deceased was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
2. The prosecution case is that the occurrence took place at 4.15 p.m.on 9‑6‑1976 when on Lytton Road a collision between two cars coming from opposite sides, one driven by Abdul Shakoor (PW‑8) and the other by some other persons, was narrowly escaped. The car driven by other persons left the scene while Abdul Shakoor (P.W.8) remained with his car on the road. The people who gathered there suspected Abdul Shakoor that he might have stolen the car. On this the deceased got into the car and asked the boy to take the car back to the place from where he had stolen it. The moment he started the car, the present respondents Nos.1 and 2 who were standing in the crowd, came forward amd asked the deceased to come out of the car. When he carne out of the car, the respondent No.2 Liaqat Ali slapped him. Thereafter, both the respondents started giving dagger blows to the deceased. This occurrence was witnessed by Saleem Raza (PW‑9) the present petitioner, Raza Mir (PW‑11) both brothers of the deceased, Ghulam Mohammad (not produced), Bhola Khan (not produced) and Liaqat Ali (PW‑10). After commission‑ of the crime the accused respondents decamped from the scene of occurrence. The deceased was rushed to the hospital in a rickshaw in injured condition but before the arrival of the doctor he succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.
3. The petitioner made his statement before the S.I.Jamshed Raza at Mayo Hospital, Lahore, on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was recorded by the ASI Willayat Khan (PW‑1) at 5‑50 p.m. on the same day. Both the appellants were arrested by the S.I.(PW‑12) on 11‑6‑1976 and recoveries of the weapons of offence were made from them on 14‑6‑76.
4. The occurrence was witnessed by Saleem Raza (PW‑9) Raza Mir (PW‑11), both brothers of the deceased, Liaqat Ali (PW‑10) an unrelated person. Ghulam Muhammad and Bhola Katta were shown as eye‑witnessess in the F.I.R. but they were given up as unnecessary. At the trial the learned trial Judge relied on the ocular testimony of the witnesses and consequently convicted respondents Nos.1 and 2 under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000 each to be paid to the heirs of the deceased on realization or in default to suffer further R.1 for six months, vide his judgment dated 30‑4‑1979. Both the respondents filed separate appeals against their conviction and sentences and the petitioner filed criminal revision for the enhancement of the sentences of both the respondents from life imprisonment to that of death. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court who heard all the matters dismissed the same vide his judgment dated 13‑4‑1983. Hence this petition for leave to appeal by the petitioner.
5. The High Court while upholding the conviction of the respondents maintained their sentences of life imprisonment principally on the ground that it was not a pre‑meditated murder "but a sudden flare‑up" on the unwanton interference of the deceased in attempting to find out whether the car driven by the boy was stolen or not, and has taken it to be an extenuating circumstance for the mitigation of their sentences. We do not find anything unexceptional in this conclusion.
6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed.
7. M.A.K./S‑401/S Petition dismissed.