2026 SCMR 1272

ABDUL RAUF alias Kala Versus State

Citation2026 SCMR 1272

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Judge(s)Athar Minallah, Irfan Saadat Khan and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan

ORDER

1. ATHAR MINALLAH, J.---

2. JAIL PETITION NO. 77 OF 2021

3. The petitioner has sought leave against the judgment dated 16.02.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The petitioner was tried in a private complaint registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1980 (P.P.C.) read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ( 'Act of 1997' ) arising out of case FIR No. 210 dated 14.11.2004 at Police Station Wan Bhachran, District Mianwali. The trial court upon conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:

4. Under Section 302(b), P.P.C.

5. To death on four counts and to pay Rs. 200,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of cach deceased or in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months on each count.

6. Under Section 324, P.P.C.

7. To ten years RI and to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- or in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

8. Under Section 7(a) of ATA, 1997

9. To death for committing murder of four deceased and to pay fine of Rs.500,000/- or in default thereof to further undergo six months SI.

10. Under Section 7(c) of ATA, 1997

11. To ten years RI for attempting to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Feroz with fine of Rs. 100,000/ or in default thereof to further undergo four months SI.

12. Under Section 21-L of ATA, 1997

13. To ten years RI for with fine of Rs.50,000/- or in default thereof to further undergo two months SI.

14. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the petitioner.

3. In appeal, the learned High Court while setting aside the conviction and sentences of the petitioner under Sections 7(a), 7(c) and 21-L of the Act of 1997, maintained the convictions and sentences awarded to him by the trial Court under sections 302(b) and 324 of P.P.C.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant as well as learned Law Officer at great length and have perused the record with their able assistance.

5. In this case, the crime had led to the unnatural deaths of four victims namely Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Bakhsh and Abdul Rehman. The prosecution in order to prove its case had produced Muhammad Iqbal (PW-3) and Muhammad Feroz (PW-4). The latter had also sustained injuries during the occurrence. The testimonies of both these witnesses were consistent on all material facts and we have found them to be reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring. The ocular account was supported by the medical evidence brought on record by Dr. Salah-ud-Din (PW-10) and Dr. Muhammad Ishfaq (PW-12). The petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender and he remained fugitive from law for almost 13 years. He was arrested on 14.03.2017 while the incident had taken place on 14.11.2004. The petitioner did not offer any plausible explanation for his long abscondence. The High Court had set aside the conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioner under Sections 7(a), 7(c) and 21-L of the Act of 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there were mitigating factors and, therefore, the sentence of death in the facts and circumstances of this case was not justified. The crime committed in this case had led to the unnatural deaths of four victims in a most gruesome and shocking manner. In our opinion, despite the mitigating factors, the High Court was justified in confirming the sentences of death keeping in view the nature of crime committed in this case and the peculiar facts and circumstances. This Court in the case of Abdul Malik 1 has held that the cases which attract capital charge are to be decided with utmost care. When law vests a discretion in a court to award sentence of death or imprisonment for life, it casts a heavy duty to balance the various consideration which underlie those sentencing provisions. This Court has highlighted the factors which a court may take into consideration while exercising its discretion in awarding one of the prescribed sentences i.e. death or imprisonment for life. The circumstances surrounding the offence, the question of mens rea , the principle of proportionality of sentence, the gravity of the offence charged, the consideration of prevention or of deterrence and of rehabilitation are some of those factors which are relevant when a court is exercising its discretion regarding awarding one of the prescribed sentences. In Dilawar Hussain's case 2 , it has been observed that there is no doubt that a court has discretion to inflict death penalty without hesitation if the circumstances do permit, such as the victim having been killed in a cold blooded, gruesome and brutal manner and that the court may exercise its discretion carefully and cautiously by taking into consideration the gravity of the offence committed by the accused. The question of sentence is, therefore, a matter that falls within the exclusive domain of a competent court and exercise of discretion depends on multiple factors, particularly the facts and circumstances in each case. There is no hard and fast rule that the sentence of death cannot be awarded if mitigating factors exists in a particular case. There is, therefore, no bar on a court to award death sentence despite existence of mitigating factors. The prosecution in our opinion had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the two competent courts. The crime committed in this case was so gruesome and shocking that justified confirmation of death sentence by the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence nor that a question of law has arisen for our consideration. Consequently, no case is made out for grant of leave. Leave is, therefore, refused and this petition is dismissed.

15. CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 493-L OF 2021

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.

16. MH/A-50/SC Petition dismissed.

17. 1 Abdul Malik and others v. The State and others (PLD 2006 SC 365).

18. 2 Dilawar Hussain v. The State (2013 SCMR 1582).