MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ And Others vs KHAKI JAN And 2 Other
This matter concerns two criminal petitions: one filed by the accused challenging their conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and another filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused from imprisonment for life to death. Regarding the accused's petition, the Court observed that the arguments presented merely sought a reappraisal of evidence, which the Court declined to undertake, finding no justification to interfere with the impugned judgment. Regarding the complainant's petition for sentence enhancement, the Court reviewed the High Court's reasoning for awarding the lesser sentence of life imprisonment and found those reasons to be sound and valid. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that neither the conviction nor the sentence warranted interference and dismissed both petitions as being without merit. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Supreme Court will not typically re-examine factual findings or evidence in a petition for leave to appeal unless a significant legal error is demonstrated, and that sentencing discretion exercised by lower courts will be upheld if based on valid reasons.
- Will the Supreme Court undertake a reappraisal of evidence in a criminal petition for leave to appeal?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the High Court?
- Is the enhancement of a sentence from life imprisonment to death mandatory in murder cases?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This order will dispose of (1) Criminal Petition No.274/85 filed by namely,
(i) Khaki Jan and (11) Fazal-ur---Rehman against their conviction and sentence under section 302, P.P.C., and (2) Criminal Petition No.55-R of 1985, filed by Muhammad Razzaq, Complainant, for the enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused /respondents i.e. Khaki Jan and Fazalur Rehman, for the murder of Iftikhar Ahmad (deceased) from imprisonment for life to one of death.
2. We have neard the learned counsel for the petitioners in each of the aforementioned petitions.
The contention raised by' the learned counsel for the accused /convicts (petitioners in Cr. P.274/85) only amount to a prayer for reappraisal of evidence. After going through the impugned judgment we do not consider it a proper case for purpose. The said petition is, therefore, dismissed.
3. As far as Cr. Petition No.53-R of 1985 filed by the Complainant, for the enhancement of the sentence of the accused/respondents, is concerned, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant portions of the impugned judgment we find that the reasons recorded by the High Court for awarding the, respondents, the lesser sentences of imprisonment for life, are sound and valid. We do not, therefore, consider it to be a fit case for interference.
Consequently this Petition (Cr.P.No.53-R of 1985) is also dismissed as being without any merits. ' revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.