SARFRAZ KHAN vs MUHAMMAD KHAN and 2 others
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant for the enhancement of the respondents' sentence from life imprisonment to death for murder. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition for sentence enhancement in limine while the convicts' appeals against their conviction and sentence were still pending, and whether the case warranted the normal penalty of death. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the High Court did not call for any interference and refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that discretionary orders of the High Court regarding the dismissal of sentence enhancement revisions will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court where no legal infirmity is found.
- Whether a revision petition for enhancement of sentence can be dismissed in limine while appeals against conviction are pending?
- Does a pre-planned murder necessarily warrant the imposition of the death penalty in every case?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the High Court declining to enhance a sentence?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
' M1AN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- This petition is directed against the order, dated 3-10-1983 passed by a Single Judge of the learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench whereby Criminal Revision No, 117 of 1983 praying for enhancement of sentence of respondents Muhammad Khan and All Shan from life imprisonment to death, was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel's contentions are that the facts of the case do call for normal penalty of death as there was no mitigating or extenuating circumstances for the dismissal of the revision petition seeking enhancement of sentence of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the learned High Court Judge in limine by way of a short order which has prejudged the petitioner's case; that the case of the prosecution on merits in Criminal Appeals Nos. 91 and 92/1983 and No, 101/1983 filed by the respondents against their conviction and sentence are still pending decision and as such the revision petition should have been heard alongwith the aforesaid appeals; that the occurrence is the result of a pre-planned murder and, therefore, normal penalty of death should have been awarded by the learned trial Court.
3. According to the prosecution case it was on 21-4-1981 that the petitioner (complainant) alongwith Shah Nawaz deceased had gone to harvest the wheat crop at about 7 a.m. And for that purpose they had taken 4 sickles and 5 wooden pieces for sharpening and making forks. While they were sitting outside the shop of Muhammad Malik waiting for the job to be done, the accused respondens appeared, armed with pistols and all of a sudden, raising Lalkara, fired numerous shots at the deceased which hit him and he fell to the ground. On the alarm raised, the other witnesses appeared but the accused/respondents ran away from the spot meanwhile.
4. According to the complainant, the motive for the murder is stated to be that Mst. Sayyan mother of the petitioner had deserted Shahnawaz deceased who had caused her some injuries with a knife and a case under section 307, P.P.C. Was registered against the deceased who was challaned in that case. The accused being the real brothers of Mst. Sayyan, on account of this enmity, killed the deceased.
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi who tried the case of the accused/respondents convicted them under section 302/34, P.P.C. For intentionally causing the death of Shahnawaz deceased and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 10,000 or in default to undergo R.I. For two years vide judgment dated 15-6-1983.
6. Having examined the prosecution case as it is at present we find that the impugned order does not call for any interference. Leave refused. .