ABDULLAH KHAN Versus STATE
The petitioner sought a review of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 7-6-1995, which had dismissed his petition for leave to appeal against his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and the alteration of his death sentence to imprisonment for life by the High Court. The review petition faced a delay of 451 days, which the Court condoned after accepting the explanation regarding office objections and refiling. On merits, the petitioner contended that the deceased was survived by a minor daughter who was her Wali and also a descendant of the petitioner, making him not liable to Qisas under section 306 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and punishable only under section 308(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Finding prima facie support for this contention, the Court recalled the earlier judgment, condoned the delay, and granted leave to appeal.
- Whether delay in filing a review petition can be condoned when caused by office objections and administrative processing?
- Is a father exempt from Qisas under section 306 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the victim's Wali is his own descendant?
- What is the applicable punishment under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a person is not liable to Qisas because the Wali is a descendant?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 306, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 308, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.--- Petitioner was convicted by the trial Court under section 302, P.P.C. for causing the death of his wife Mst. Nasir Bibi and was awarded de4tth sentence and a fine of Rs.25,000 or in default thereof to undergo S.I. for six months. On appeal, learned Judges of the High Court maintained his conviction but altered his death sentence to one of imprisonment for life. Petition for leave to appeal brought by him in this Court was dismissed vide judgment dated 7-6-1995. Petitioner now seeks review of the judgment dated 7-6-1995.
2. Review petition is stated to be barred by 451 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, explained that the petitioner filed review petition within the limitation period but it was returned by the Office with an objection which was not tenable. Nonetheless, the petitioner moved an application explaining away so-called delay in filing the review petition. Office took a lot of time in deciding the said application. In the circumstances, the petitioner was not responsible for the delay. We are satisfied with the explanation tendered by the learned counsel. The delay in filing/refilling the review petition is accordingly condoned.
On merits, it has been contended by the learned counsel that the deceased was survived by a daughter Gulnaz Bibi aged 2 years at the time of her murder. The said daughter is the ' Wali' of the deceased and she is also the descendant of the petitioner. He was, therefore, not liable to Qisas by virtue of section 306, P.P.C. and he could only be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 14 years as Tazir as provided in sub section (2) of section 308, P.P,C. This proposition is, prima facie, supported by the provisions of section 306 read with section 308, P.P.C. Judgment/Order dated 7-6-1995 dismissing the petition for leave to appeal is, therefore, recalled and leave is granted to examine the afore-noted contention.
N.H.Q./A-71/S Review accepted/Leave granted.