MUHAMMAD ZIKIRYA vs MUHAMMAD RAEES and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant's side seeking the enhancement of the respondent's sentence from imprisonment for life to death in a murder case. The High Court had earlier upheld the respondent's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment, while dismissing the petitioner's criminal revision for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of death was the more proper punishment based on the circumstances of the case, particularly considering factors such as the convict's tender age at the time of the offence and the prosecution's failure to provide details of the motive at an earlier stage. The Supreme Court held that the approach of the courts below on the question of sentence was neither illegal nor suffered from any error of principle. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that mitigating factors like tender age and lack of clear motive properly weighed in favour of maintaining the sentence of imprisonment for life.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent sentencing discretion of lower courts when based on mitigating factors like tender age?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to detail the motive at an earlier stage constitute a valid ground for withholding the death penalty?
- Can a complainant maintain a petition for leave to appeal seeking enhancement of a sentence from life imprisonment to death?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment of the High Court whereby in a murder case the respondent's appeal against conviction under section 302, P.P.C. And also sentences of imprisonment for life and fine were upheld and at the same time the petitioner's Criminal Revision for enhancement of the sentence to death, was dismissed. This petition has been moved by the complainant's side with a view to seek enhancement of sentence.
2. ' Apart from the technical ground that the judgment of the High Court in appeal is silent on the disposal of the Criminal Revision, which was separately disposed of by a short order, learned counsel has also advanced the argument that in the circumstances of this case the sentence of death was more proper punishment for the respondent No, 1.
3. The two factors on the question of sentence which have gone in favour of the respondent/convict are: (i), his tender age at time of the offence, and (ii) the failure from the prosecution side to give the details of the motive, relevant for the offence at the earlier stage.
4. After hearing the learned counsel we find that in so far as the facts and circumstances of this case are concerned, the approach of the learned Courts below on matter of sentence, was neither illegal nor it suffered from any other error including that of any principle. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.