FAZAL AHMAD vs BASHIR AHMAD And Another
This petition for leave to appeal sought the enhancement of a sentence imposed on the respondent, Bashir Ahmad, who was convicted under Section 304, Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Muhammad Yusaf. The trial court had originally sentenced the respondent to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the High Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (nearly five years), citing factors such as the respondent's share in a tube-well, unexplained injuries to a co-accused, the infliction of a single spear blow, and the respondent's detention period. However, the High Court increased the compensation payable to the heirs from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the High Court exercised judicious discretion given the circumstances of a sudden fight in the heat of the moment. Furthermore, the Court noted that significant time had elapsed since the High Court's order, and the respondent would have completed the original sentence by the time of the hearing.
- Does the High Court exercise judicious discretion when reducing a sentence for a murder committed during a sudden fight?
- Can the Supreme Court refuse to enhance a sentence when the respondent has already served the duration of the original sentence due to the passage of time?
- Is an increase in compensation a relevant factor in determining the adequacy of a reduced prison sentence?
- Section 304, Part-I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.-- This petition seeks enhancement of sentence passed on Bashir Ahmad by the trial Court for causing murder of Muhammad Yusaf. He was convicted under section 304, Part-I, P.P.C. And ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and further to pay a compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000 to the heirs of the deceased or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. The High Court after taking into account the fact such as the one-fourth share holding in the tube- well, the injuries caused to Riaz, the co-accused, for which no explanation was given, the infliction of single spear blow to the deceased and the period he remained in detention and during trial as sufficient for reducing the sentence from ten years to nearly five years in detention which was already undergone. However, at the same time, the High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,000 to 10.000 as the earlier amount was not found adequate.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case that it was a sudden fight and the fatal blow was caused in the heat of the moment, it is difficult to accept that the High Court did not exercise a judicious discretion in reducing the sentence. Added to it is the increase in the amount of compensation which further goes to show adequacy of the sentence as a whole. Besides four years have elapsed since the High Court had passed the impugned order and if the sentence had not been reduced, this respondent would have served out the sentence by now. We are conscious that it was not on account of any fault of the petitioner that this delay had occurred, but nonetheless the fact that this sentence would have been undergone.