MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs THE STATE And Another
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the accused for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The accused challenged his conviction, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence back to capital punishment. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the accused's counsel did not dispute the conviction or the responsibility for the death, focusing solely on the sentence. Regarding the complainant's petition for enhancement, the Court observed that the prosecution’s own evidence established the motive for the killing was to rehabilitate family honour, which mitigated the circumstances of the crime. Consequently, the Court held that the lesser sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate and that the capital sentence was not warranted. Both petitions were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to maintain the conviction while imposing the lesser sentence of life imprisonment.
- Is a sentence of life imprisonment appropriate for a murder committed to restore family honour?
- Can a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be upheld when the accused does not dispute their responsibility for the death?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- Salabat was convicted by the Sessions Judge at Sahiwal of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of Khurshid deceased and was sentenced to suffer death and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000. He was also directed to pay another sum of Rs.10,000 by way of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. On appeal and reference, the High Court upheld his conviction for the offence under section 302 but reduced his sentence to imprisonment for life. It also reduced the sentence of fine to Rs.1,000 and set aside the direction with regard to the payment of compensations.
The judgment of the High Court has given rise to these two petitions; one has been filed by Salabat against his conviction and sentence and the other has been preferred by Muhammad Afzal, brother of the deceased, to seek enhancement of the sentence awarded to Salabat.
2. The occurrence took place on 23-2-1982 immediately after the morning prayer time. According to the prosecution the deceased together with his brothers, Muhammad Afzal (PW-8) and Zakir Ahmad, and Muhammad Tufail (PW-9) was going to his field where he had set up a sugarcane crusher. On the way he was surprised by Salabat who had concealed himself in a sugarcane field.
As soon as he saw him Salabat fired thrice at him with a pistol. The deceased was fatally wounded and he died at the spot.
3. As regards the motive the case of the prosecution was that Salabat killed the deceased as the latter was carrying on an intrigue with his sister.
4. At the trial Salabat pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. He denied that he was responsible for causing death of the deceased. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.
5. Before the trial Court Muhammad Afzal (PW-8) and Muhammad Tufail (PW-9) gave the eye- witness account of the occurrence. They deposed that Salabat fired at the deceased as the latter alongwith them was going to the field. Their testimony was corroborated by the recovery of a pistol from the possession of Salabat after his arrest. According to the fire-arm expert, this pistol had been used for firing three empty cartridges which were found at the scene o1 occurrence by the investigating officer.
6. Learned counsel appearing for Salabat did not dispute his responsibility for the death of the deceased. He also did not question the legality of his conviction for the offence under section 302.
He confined his address to the question of sentence only. It is to be noticed that for the offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code there are only two sentences one is death and the other is imprisonment for life. Salabat has already been given the lesser sentence by the High Court. He could not be treated more leniently.
7. As regards the petition filed by Muhammad Afzal, it may be mentioned that on prosecution's own showing Salabat had killed the deceased in order to rehabilitate his family honour. It was, therefore, not a fit case where capital sentence should have been awarded to Salabat. This petition is also without any merit.
8. For the reasons stated above both petitions are dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus THE STATE 1997 PCRLJ 484