MUHAMMAD SUBHAN vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the father of the deceased against the judgment of the High Court, which had acquitted one respondent and reduced the death sentence of the other respondent to imprisonment for life. The core legal question involved the propriety of the High Court's appreciation of evidence leading to the acquittal and the reduction of sentence based on the motive of family honour. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal based on appreciation of evidence warranted no interference, and the reduction of sentence by the High Court, taking into account the motive set up by the prosecution, was a valid exercise of discretion and not arbitrary. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, laying down that appellate courts may consider prosecution-established motives of family honour as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence by the High Court?
- Can the motive of family honour set up by the prosecution serve as a mitigating factor for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Was the discretion exercised by the High Court in reducing the sentence arbitrary?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--On the night between 13/14-12-81, three real brothers, namely, Muhammad Farooq, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Irfan were sleeping in a room of their Kotha in Chak No,103/TDA in Tehsil Leiah. The room was put on fire and as a result they were badly burnt.
Muhammad Farooq subsequently died. The matter was reported at Police Station Leiah on the following day at 12-30 p.m. In the F.I.R. Muhammad Salim and Abdus Sattar, respondents, were cited as the persons responsible for the fire. It was alleged that Muhammad Salim was suspecting that Muhammad Irfan was carrying an intrigue with his sister and that in order to take revenge, on the night of occurrence, Muhammad Salim sprayed petrol on the door of the room where the three brothers were sleeping and Abdus Sattar set the door on fire with a lighted match stick.
2. After investigation both Muhammad Salim and Abdus Sattar were put on trial on charges under sections 302, 307 and 436, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge found them guilty on all the counts. For the offence under section 302, he sentenced Muhammad Salim to death and Abdus Sattar to imprisonment for life. On appeal and reference, the High Court acquitted Abdus Sattar but maintained the convictions of Muhammad Salim on various counts as recorded by the learned trial Court. It however reduced the sentence of death passed on him to imprisonment for life on the ground that the motive for the occurrence was rehabilitation of family honour. The petitioner who is father of the deceased, seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
3. The acquittal of Abdus Sattar is based upon appreciation of evidence and we see no justification to interfere with it. As regards reduction of the sentence of A Muhammad Salim on the charge under section 302, P.P.C. The High Court has taken into account the motive for the occurrence which the prosecution had itself B set up at the trial. We are not persuaded that the discretion exercised by the High Court in this regard was arbitrary. Leave is refused.