MUHAMMAD ALI vs SIKANDAR HAYAT and others
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9-3-1987. The first petition sought the enhancement of a sentence, while the second challenged the acquittal of a respondent. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel did not press the petition regarding the acquittal, which was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court. Regarding the petition for enhancement of sentence, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The core legal question identified by the Court concerns the High Court's decision to alter the conviction of the respondents from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304, Part II, of the same Code. The Supreme Court held that this alteration and the subsequent reduction of the sentence required a detailed examination to determine if there was any legal justification for such a modification, particularly where the reduction might not be warranted by law. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to further scrutinize the legality of the High Court's findings.
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to examine the legal justification for altering a conviction from Section 302 to Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a reduction of sentence by the High Court subject to detailed examination by the Supreme Court if the legal basis for such reduction is questionable?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Mohammad Ali son of Sarwar Khan, resident of Chak No, 56/NB, Police Station Saddar District Sargodha has filed two separate petitions against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9-3-1987.
2. ' Petition No,109/87 is for enhancement of sentence. The other (Cr.P.110/87) is against the acquittal of Rah Nawaz respondent.
3. ' Learned counsel did not press Criminal Petition No,110/87. The same is hereby dismissed.
4. ' In the other petition we have heard learned counsel and have also perused the impugned judgment.
5. We think it is a fit case for leave to appeal. The reason given by the High Court whereby the conviction and sentence of respondents 1 and 2 was altered A from section 302 to 304, Part H, P.P.C.
6. Requires detailed examination so as to make sure whether there was any legal justification for such an alteration and reducing the sentence when the same is not warranted by law.
7. ' Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,30,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Sargodha.