SHABRATI Versus QAMAR SULTAN
This is an application for leave to appeal seeking enhancement of sentence against a High Court judgment. The respondents were initially convicted by the trial court under Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and Section 324/34, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, receiving 3.5 years' R.I. for the former. The High Court subsequently convicted them under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment each, maintaining the fine and compensation. The petitioner argued that the High Court, having found the accused guilty of murder, should have awarded the normal capital punishment under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and failed to provide reasons for not doing so. The Supreme Court, while noting the High Court's lack of explicit reasons, declined to grant leave to appeal for sentence enhancement, considering that the respondents would have benefited from a Presidential Order of Amnesty if capital punishment had been awarded after a certain date, and also considering the nature of the deceased's injury and subsequent medical complications. The petition was dismissed.
- Can the Supreme Court refuse to enhance a sentence of life imprisonment to capital punishment in a murder case, even if the High Court did not explicitly state reasons for not awarding capital punishment?
- Should the Supreme Court consider the potential benefit of a Presidential Amnesty Order for convicts when deciding on an application for enhancement of sentence?
- Is the nature of the injury and subsequent medical complications leading to death a relevant factor when determining the appropriateness of a life sentence versus capital punishment for murder?
- Does the Supreme Court have discretion to refuse leave to appeal for sentence enhancement based on specific circumstances of the case, even if the High Court's reasoning for the original sentence was not fully elaborated?
- Section 307/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J .‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 30‑10‑1988 for the enhancement of sentence of the respondents.
2. The facts, in brief are that it is alleged that on 15‑6‑1985 the respondents and Muhammad Naseem armed with pistols, Muhammad Nawaz and Abdul Latif armed with Sotas appeared at the scene. They raised a lalkara, Qamar Sultan fired at Muhammad Ashraf which hit him on his leg. Muhammad Ashraf fell down on the ground. Respondent Muhammad Naseem then fired at the complainant Shabrati but Shabrati laid himself on the ground in order to avoid the fire. The fire‑of Muhammad Naseem respondent missed complainant Shabrati but had hit Muhammad Sadiq a passerby. Respondents Muhammad Nawaz and Abdul Latif then inflicted their Sota blows on the person of Shabrati.
3. The motive for the said occurrence was that Muhammad Ashraf deceased son of Shabrati and Ghulam Abbas, brother of P.W. Atta Muhamuiau had a quarrel with respondent Muhammad Naseem and injured Muhammad Naseem respondent. A case under section 307/34, P.P.C. was registered against the deceased Muhammad Ashraf and Ghulam Abbas. The respondents had caused the injuries as a result of the said motive.
4. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as hereunder:‑
(1) Qamar Sultan,. Muhammad Naseem, Muhammad Nawaz and Abdul Latif, under Section 304, P.P.C. 3‑1/2 years' R.I. each and fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default 1 year R.I. each.
(2) Under Section 324/34, P.P.C. 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default 3 months each.
(3) Under Section 324/34, P.P.C. 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default 3 months each.
5. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and the fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The High Court convicted the respondents under Section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life each. The sentence of fine and award of compensation ordered to be the same.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the High Court came to the conclusion that the accused had committed the culpable homicide amounting to murder, then the normal penalty should have been awarded. Therefore, the order of the High Court to that extent is illegal and needs reversal by this Court. The High Court has not given any reason for not awarding the normal sentence as provided under Section 302, P.P.C.
7. In para. 38 of the judgment it has been stated that "after anxious consideration we are of the view that this is not a case for imposing the capital punishment". Though the High Court has not recorded any reason but we are not inclined to grant Leave to Appeal for the following reasons:‑
(i) The respondents had been convicted under section 304, P.P.C. by the Additional District Judge on 21‑12‑1986. The High Court convicted the respondents under Section 302/34, P.P.C. on 30‑10‑1988. In case the High Court had awarded the capital punishment, the respondents would have the benefit of the Presidential Order of Amnesty after 7‑12‑1988. The sentence awarded by the High Court is legal.
(ii) The deceased Muhammad Ashraf was injured on 15‑6‑1985 and died on 1‑7‑1985. The deceased had received the injuries on left leg upper part and according to the doctor who performed the postmortem, the leg was amputated and wound was not stitched with foul swelling done by the surgeon after developing gangrine of left foot. He observed that this injury was covered by antiseptic dressing and it was mentioned in the bed head ticket that the gangrine was developed for which amputation was done.
8. In view of what has been stated above, we do not see any force in this petition. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
9. N.H.Q./S‑571/S Leave refused.