MUHAMMAD AZEEM alias JEEMO vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the petitioner's conviction from section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to imprisonment for life for the murder of Muhammad Ilyas and causing injuries to others. The petitioner, Muhammad Azeem, challenged the quantum of the sentence imposed by the High Court, while not contesting the conviction itself. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of life imprisonment, as modified by the High Court, was excessive given the circumstances of the case. Upon reviewing the record and hearing counsel, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically to examine the quantum of the sentence. The Court held that the appropriateness of the sentence imposed required further judicial consideration, thereby allowing the petition to proceed on the limited question of sentencing severity.
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely to examine the quantum of a sentence?
- Is a conviction under section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 subject to review regarding the severity of the sentence imposed?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304 Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 26-6-1988.
2. Muhammad Azeem alias Jeemo (now petitioner), alongwith Muhammad Jamil alias Jelo, Ateeq alias Teeqo and Muhammad Akram, was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala for offence under section 302/307/452/34, P.P.C. For committing the murder of Muhammad Ilyas and causing injuries to Muhammad Siddiq and Latafat All P.Ws. After the trial, Muhammad Azeem was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to death plus a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default to one year's R.I. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs,8,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased or to undergo six months' R.I. In default, He was further convicted under section 324, P.P.C.
For causing injuries to Muhammad Siddiq and Latafat All P.Ws.And sentenced to a fine of Rs,200 on each count or in default to one month's S.I. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs,300 to each of the injured P.Ws. As compensation or in default to one month's S.I. Ateeq alias Teeqo and Jamil were also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. For causing injuries to Muhammad Ilyas deceased and Muhammad Siddiq P.W. They were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default to one month's S.I. On both the counts. Ateeq was ordered to pay a sum of Rs,1,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of Muhammad Ilyas deceased and Muhammad Siddiq P.W. Jamil was directed to pay Rs,2,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of Muhammad Ilyas deceased. In default both were sentenced to one month's S.1. Muhammad Akram was, however, acquitted.
3. Muhammad Azeem petitioner alone took the matter of his conviction and sentence to the High Court by way of an appeal and a revision was filed by the complainant for the enhancement of sentence of Ateeq and Jamul and for setting aside the acquittal of Muhammad Akram, All these matters were heard by the learned Division Bench partly accepted the appeal of Muhammad Azeem in that his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. Was converted to one under section 304 Part I, P.P.C. And he was awarded imprisonment for life. The rest of the sentences were maintained. The revision filed by the complainant was dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the conviction of the petitioner under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. But submitted that as the record stands the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is excessive and requires interference by this Court. This req-ires consideration.
5. Leave is granted to examine the quantum of sentence alone.