ABDUL HAMID vs The STATE
This review petition was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by a petitioner seeking review of his conviction and death sentence. The petitioner argued that scattered wares in his shop and blood found on the road indicated an offensive intrusion by the complainant party, which constituted grave and sudden provocation, thereby reducing his offense to manslaughter. He also contended that his death sentence was disproportionate given the sudden and unpremeditated nature of the crime. The Supreme Court held that the arguments raised to support the new plea of provocation had already been considered and rejected under the pleas of self-defense and sudden fight during the leave petition. The Court observed that no apparent error on the face of the record existed to justify reopening the case in review jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court noted that while the sudden nature of the incident did not alter the offense of murder due to the cruelty of inflicting four knife blows, such factors could be considered by executive authorities in a mercy petition.
- Can a new plea of grave and sudden provocation be raised in a review petition if the underlying factual circumstances were already considered and rejected under other pleas during the leave petition?
- What constitutes a sufficient ground or error apparent on the face of the record to justify reopening a criminal case under the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction?
- Does the filing of a review petition before the Supreme Court act as a legal impediment to the executive commutation of a death sentence under a general amnesty?
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The main points urged in this review petition are that the impugned judgment has disregarded the effect of the circumstance that wares in the petitioner's shop were lying scattered, and some blood was found in front of the petitioner's shop on both sides of the metalled road, as stated by the investigating officer, which indicate that the complainant party was at least guilty of an offensive intrusion in the petitioner's shop, thereby furnishing a cause for grave and sudden provocation to the petitioner, reducing his offence to man-slaughter, and that, in any case, the sentence of death awarded to the petitioner was disproportionate to the nature of his crime.
2. The presence of the blood in front of the petitioner's shop does not advance the defence plea. All these arguments were made at the hearing of the leave petition to support the plea of self- defence as well as to show the sudden and unpremeditated nature of the crime, but they were not accepted. If the circum--stances now urged were doubted in support of the pleas, which were raised, they cannot be accepted in support of the new plea of provocation, which was not specifically raised, then but is being urged now in the review petition. Anyhow, no mistake in the impugned judgment has been pointed out and none is apparent on the face of the record to justify the re-opening of the case in review jurisdiction.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ash a result of the general amnesty lately granted by the Government, the capital sentences of condemned prisoners have been commuted but this concession has been withheld from the petitioner, because of the review petition filed in this Court. We cannot appreciate as to how the review petition can be an impediment in the com-- mutation of the petitioner's sentence in consequence of the amnesty proclaimed by the Government. At any rate, he can avail of it after the disposal of the review petition.
4. The learned counsel has further submitted that this is a case of absence of any previous enmity, and the circumstances do show that the whole affair was sudden and unpremeditated. We did not consider these factors to be valid for altering the offence of the petitioner from murder to man- slaughter, as in our view he had acted cruelly by giving four knife blows to the deceased. But these points can certainly be taken into account by the executive authorities for considering the petitioner's sentence in a mercy petition, if the petitioner chooses to file one before them.
5. This petition is dismissed.