NAZAR HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD Alias MUHAMMAD ALI And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal matter concerning the murder of Manzoor Hussain. The trial court convicted four respondents under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing one to death and three to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted two respondents, upheld the conviction of the first respondent but reduced his sentence to life imprisonment, and altered the conviction of the third respondent to Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the sentences of the first and third respondents. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's discretion regarding the first respondent, noting that the motive—suspected illicit relations involving the respondent's fiancée—constituted an extenuating circumstance. However, regarding the third respondent, the Court found a prima facie case that his participation warranted liability under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than the lesser charge applied by the High Court. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically to examine the conviction of the third respondent while dismissing the petition regarding the others.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in imposing a lesser sentence for murder when extenuating circumstances exist?
- Does the participation of an accused in a joint criminal act warrant conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than a lesser offense?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- The real brother of the petitioner herein, namely, Manzoor Hussain, aged 24 years, was murdered on 28-7-1975 at 11/12 in the night in a field near the tube-well of Muhammad Tufail son of Pir Bakhsh within the area of Chak No.22/8-R. Within the limits of Police Station Talumba, District Multan. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were accused of having jointly committed the crime and were, accordingly, tried.
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who tried them, convicted all of them for the murder of Manzoor Hussain under section 302/34, P.P.C., while respondent No.1 was awarded the sentence of death and the other three respondents were sentenced to imprisonment for life. However, on appeal and reference, the High Court, by its judgment, dated 15-7-1979, found respondents Nos. 2 and 4 innocent and acquitted them. However, respondents Nos. 1 and 3 were found by it to be guilty. The former's conviction under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was upheld but his sentence was reduced to life imprisonment but as regards respondent No.3, his conviction was altered to one under section 324/34, P.P.C. And his sentence reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the learned High Court.
3. Although this petition for leave, as filed, is directed against the order passed in respect of all the four respondents, Mr. Abdul Aziz Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has, however, pressed before us the petition with respect to the orders passed in regard to respondents Nos.l and 3 only.
4. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned, it is submitted that he was armed with a hatchet and attacked the deceased Manzoor Hussain with that lethal weapon and inflicted injuries on the vital parts of his body (viz. Right temporal bone and neck); hence there was no reason for reducing his sentence from death to life imprisonment.
5. As regards respondent No.3, it is submitted that he also shared the common intention to murder Manzoor Hussain with respondent No.1 and had fully participated in the occurrence inflicting a knife blow on one of the eye-witnesses viz. Ahmad P.W.
6. We have considered these submissions.
7. So far as the petition directed against the imposition of the lesser sentence upon respondent No.1 is concerned, we are of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the High Court in imposing the lesser sentence does not require any interference. The motive the crime, as stated in the F.I.R. Itself, is that Mst. Amiran, sister of respondent No.2 herein was engaged to respondent No.1 aforesaid and that the said respondent suspected that Manzoor Hussain deceased had illicit relations with her. In these circumstances, an extenuating circumstance clearly existed in favour of respondent No.1.
8. However, so far as respondent No.3 is concerned, there is prime facie force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his role was such that he was equally liable under section 302/34. P.P.C., along with respondent No. l and that, therefore, the High Court had erred in law in convicting him only under section 324/34, P.P.C.
9. We would, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the above-mentioned submission.
10. The result is that while the petition directed against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 stands dismissed, leave is granted to consider the petition as against Wazir son of Ghulam, respondent No.3 herein.
11. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.25,000 with to sureties each in the like amount returnable to the District Magistrate, Sahiwal, shall issue against him.