GHULAM MUHAMMAD MEMON And Another vs THE STATE And Another
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, which had partially allowed an appeal filed by the petitioner, Asad Mujtaba. The High Court had maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life. The petitioners sought leave to appeal this decision before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Upon reviewing the record and considering the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the parties, the Supreme Court determined that the impugned judgment of the High Court required further examination to ascertain whether it was based on the correct principles of criminal justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave in both petitions, directing that the resulting appeals be heard together. The judgment essentially serves as an order granting leave to appeal, identifying that the legal reasoning applied by the High Court in maintaining the conviction while modifying the sentence warrants a comprehensive review by the apex court to ensure adherence to established criminal jurisprudence.
- Does a High Court judgment maintaining a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while reducing the sentence to life imprisonment warrant further review by the Supreme Court?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal based on the need to determine if a High Court judgment is founded on correct principles of criminal justice?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--In both these petitions leave is sought from the same judgment of a Division Bench of Sind High Court, dated 25-8-1985 by which the appeal of Asad Mujtaba petitioner in Civil Petition for Leave No. 51-K of 1985 and respondent No. 2 in Criminal Petition for Leave No. 45 of 1985 against his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. Was partly allowed in that while maintaining the conviction under section 302, P.P.C. The sentence awarded to him was reduced to one imprisonment for life.
2. After having gone through the record of the case in the light of arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties we feel that the question whether the impugned judgment of the High Court is based on correct principles of criminal justice deserves consideration. We, therefore, grant leave in these both cases and allow the petitions.
3. Appeals arising out of these petitions will be heard together.