MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the High Court, which upheld his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial court for committing the murder of the deceased. The petitioner did not challenge the legality or propriety of the conviction itself. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the capital sentence was warranted given that the prosecution failed to examine any witness possessing personal knowledge of the alleged motive, leaving the underlying reasons for the shooting shrouded in mystery. Citing relevant precedents where lack of proved motive justified the lesser penalty of life imprisonment, the petitioner contended that the death penalty should not have been imposed. The Supreme Court found that the contention concerning the sentence required consideration and consequently granted leave to appeal solely to determine the question of sentence.
- Whether leave to appeal can be granted on the question of sentence alone where the underlying motive for the murder is shrouded in mystery?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner, Muhammad Zubair in this petition for Special Leave to Appeal was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha of an offence under section 302 of Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of Dost Muhammad deceased and was sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000. On appeal his conviction and sentences were upheld by the High Court and the sentence of death was confirmed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. According to the prosecution on 5-11-1980 at 12-00 noon, the deceased and his brother Muhammad Khan were returning to their house in village Narri. When they reached near the house of one Dost Muhammad the petitioner emerged from some bushes and fired at the deceased in the chest. The deceased died at the spot. The petitioner ran away with his carbine. The occurrence was reported at Police Station Katha Saghral on the same day at 2-00 p. m.
3. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. He stated that the deceased had been killed by some unknown persons when he was all alone and that he had been falsely implicated in this case. He produced two witnesses in his defence.
4. At the trial the prosecution examined two eye-witnesses, namely, Muhammad Khan (P. W.5) and Nazar Muhammad (P. W.6). The petitioner also examined two witnesses. After examining the entire evidence the trial Court accepted the testimony of the eye-witnesses and found the petitioner guilty of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The High Court after re-appraisal of the evidence maintained his conviction. Learned counsel has not challenged the legality or propriety of his conviction.
5. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be an incident which took place a month prior to the occurrence. It was alleged that the deceased had assaulted the petitioner with a Soti for damaging his crops. At the trial the prosecution did not produce any witness who had personal knowledge about this assult. It is contended on behalf o the petitioner that this was a case where the motive has not been established; that being so, the reasons why the petitioner shot at the deceased were shrouded in mystery. In the circumstances, he argued, this was not a fit case where the capital punishment should have been imposed upon the petitioner. In support of his contention he relied upon Mukhtar Ahmad v. Muhammad Ilyas 1986 SCMR 634, Mati-ur Rehman v. The State 1985 SCMR 489 and Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1984 SCMR 1184. In these cases the lesser penalty of imprisonment for life was imposed upon the convicts for the reason that the motives for the homicide were shrouded in mystery.
7. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner needs consideration. We grant leave to appeal to the petitioner on the question of sentence alone.