GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent, Muhammad Aslam Khan, who was convicted for the murder of Sharif. The trial court had convicted the respondent under Section 304(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, accepting his plea of self-defense, and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, which the High Court subsequently reduced to seven years. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its discretion by reducing the respondent's sentence. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in its decision to reduce the sentence, citing the injuries sustained by the respondent during the incident and the fact that he had already served over two years as an under-trial prisoner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for enhancement, affirming that the sentence reduction was appropriate given the specific mitigating circumstances of the case.
- Is the reduction of a sentence by the High Court justified when the accused has sustained injuries and served significant time as an under-trial prisoner?
- Can a plea of self-defense result in a conviction under Section 304(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of Section 302?
- Section 304(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Muhammad Aslam Khan, petitioner, was tried alongwith Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Bashir for the murder of Sharif. The trial Court acquitted the two co-accused but convicted Aslam Khan under section 304(1), P.P.C. And sentenced him to 10 years' R.I. He filed an appeal before the High Court which maintained his conviction but reduced his sentence to 7 years'
2. R.I. Ghulam Muhammad has filed the present petition seeking leave to appeal for enhancement of the sentence awarded to Aslam Khan, respondent.
3. ' Aslam Khan, respondent is stated to have committed the murder by firing at Sharif, deceased, with his revolver. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He admitted having fired at the deceased but gave a different version stating that he had shot only in his self-defence when he was attacked by the complainant party consisting of for persons, including Sharif, deceased, who were armed with Sotis. He stated that Sharif had given him a Sota blow and apprehending danger to his life, he had taken out his revolver and fired at him to save himself. This plea was accepted and that is why he was convicted under section 304(1), P.P.C. Instead of under section 302, P.P.C.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the facts of the case the High Court had erred in reducing the sentence of the respondent. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and feel that the learned High Court was justified in reducing the A sentence, specially in view of the injuries sustained by respondent and also because he had remained in jail for more than two years as an under-trail prisoner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit.