GHULAM MURTAZA Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF
This appeal by special leave arose from a High Court judgment that commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment for a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant party challenged the High Court's decision, specifically questioning whether the absence of an immediate motive for the murder was sufficient legal justification to deviate from the normal penalty of death. The Supreme Court examined the timeline of the case, noting that the occurrence took place in 1981 and the trial court judgment was delivered in 1984. Crucially, a General Amnesty Order was issued by the President in December 1988. The Supreme Court held that had the High Court confirmed the death sentence, the respondent would have been entitled to the benefits of this General Amnesty Order. Consequently, the Court determined that it would be inappropriate to interfere with the sentence imposed by the High Court at this stage. The appeal was dismissed, effectively maintaining the life imprisonment sentence.
- Does the absence of an immediate motive for murder provide sufficient justification for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with a commuted sentence if the respondent would have been eligible for a General Amnesty Order had the original death sentence been confirmed?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑ This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court whereby the sentence of death passed by the trial Court on Muhammad Arif alias Bahari, respondent, on his conviction under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, was not confirmed and the same was reduced to imprisonment for life.
2. Leave to appeal was granted to the complainant party to consider whether "the ground of non‑availability of so‑called immediate motive for the occurrence" furnished sufficient justification for not passing normal A punishment provided by law for the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
3. The occurrence took place on 6‑12‑1981 and the judgment of the trial Court finding the respondent guilty of the offence under section 302 was announced on 5=12‑1984. The High Court recorded the impugned judgment on 26‑9‑1987. In December, 1988 the President issued a General Amnesty Order. B Had the High Court confirmed the sentence of death passed on the respondent he would have been entitled to the benefit granted by the General Amnesty Order‑ In the circumstances, it will not be appropriate for us to interfere at this stage with the sentence passed by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed.
M.BA./G‑382/S Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- FATEH SHAH and 2 others vs THE STATE 1995 SCMR 1316