SAADULLAH vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had set aside the petitioner's acquittal for murder and convicted him under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, enhancing his sentence to transportation for life. The petitioner had originally been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, only under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving five years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court following the High Court's reversal of an acquittal and subsequent enhancement of the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had a right of appeal under Article 58(2)(b) of the 1962 Constitution and Article 6(1)(a) of the Provisional Constitution Order of 1969. Relying on the precedent in Rashid Ahmad v. The State, the Court determined that the petition should be treated as a memorandum of appeal and registered as a direct appeal, thereby affirming the right of an accused to appeal when an acquittal is overturned by the High Court.
- Does an accused have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court when the High Court reverses an acquittal and convicts the accused?
- Under which constitutional provisions can a petitioner file a direct appeal to the Supreme Court following a High Court judgment enhancing a sentence?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 58(2)(b), Constitution of 1962
- Article 6(1)(a), Provisional Constitution Order of 1969
ORDER
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner in this case was placed on trial along with one, Abdul Ghaffar alias Badshahgai, on a charge under section 302/34, P. P. C. For the murder of one, Zaidur Rehman, on the 18th of December 1967, at 2-00 p. m. Near the flour mill of Niaz Mohd. Khan within the limits of village Amarkot.
2. Since Abdul Ghaffar was absconding the petitioner was tried alone and the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, convicted him only under section 307, P. P. C. Giving him a sentence of only five years' rigorous imprisonment.
3. Against this order both the petitioner as well as the State preferred appeals. A criminal revision was also filed by a private complainant for the enhancement of the sentence of the petitioner.
4. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner but allowed the State appeal against the petitioner's acquittal of the charge of murder, found him guilty under section 302/34, P. P. C. And sentenced him to transportation for life.
5. Since the sentence of the petitioner was enhanced and the acquittal set aside the revision petition fell through.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that in the circumstances of this case the petitioner had a right to come to this Court as of right, both under Article 58(2)(b) of the 1962- Constitution as also under Article 6(1)(a) of the Provisional Constitution Order of 1969. The contention of the learned Advocate is correct and is fully supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Rashid Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1969 SC 362).
7. Let this petition be, accordingly, treated as a memorandum of appeal and let the case be registered as a direct appeal.