ALI SHER vs REHMA And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Ali Sher against the High Court order dated 10-11-1980, which altered the conviction of the respondents and maintained a reduced sentence. The core legal question involves the evaluation of a conviction based on an accused person's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether the inculpatory and exculpatory parts of such a statement must be accepted in their entirety when it forms the sole basis of conviction. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of respondent Mannu was justified due to lack of proof, and that since respondent Rehma's conviction was based on his own statement admitting to the killing under grave and sudden provocation, that statement had to be accepted in its entirety, justifying the reduction of sentence to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The court laid down the principle that when a conviction is based on the statement of the accused, that statement must be believed in its entirety.
- Whether a conviction based on the statement of the accused requires accepting that statement in its entirety?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of grave and sudden provocation when convicted on his own statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's reduction of a sentence based on the appreciation of the accused's statement?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAN, J.--A.I Sher petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 10-11-1980 altering the conviction of the respondents of the charge under section 302 PPC and for the enhancement of sentence of Rehma respondent from 3 years' R.I. To at least imprisonment for life.
2. We have gone through the impugned order and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We feel that Mannu (respondent No.2) was rightly acquitted as the prosecution had failed to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt.
3. As for Rehma respondent he has not been convicted on the evidence produced by the prosecution but on his own statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he gave a different version of the incident, saying that he had killed Bashir (deceased) under grave and sudden provocation. It is well established that when conviction la has to be based on the statement of the accused himself that statement roust be believed in its entirety.
4. In view of the facts given by Rehma respondent in his statement we feel that the High Court was justified in reducing his sentence to 3 years' R.I. We do not, therefore, consider it a fit case for grant of leave, which is consequently refused. 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.