SARDAR ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Sardar Ali, for the murder of Muhammad Ismail. The petitioner was originally convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside charges under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to a reduction in his death sentence based on the argument that the motive for the crime arose from a sudden altercation regarding the disposal of foul water, which allegedly provoked the petitioner. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the deceased was not involved in the prior dispute and had merely intervened to stop the petitioner from abusing women. The Court found no extenuating circumstances to justify a lesser punishment, affirming that the petitioner's actions were unprovoked by the deceased. The principle laid down is that a sudden, minor altercation involving third parties does not constitute a mitigating factor for reducing a death sentence when the victim was not a participant in the initial dispute.
- Does a prior altercation between third parties regarding a minor dispute constitute a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
- Can a petitioner claim provocation for a murder when the deceased was not a party to the initial dispute?
- Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal when the lower court has properly evaluated the evidence and found no extenuating circumstances?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Cowl, dated 206-1987.
2. Sardar All and his brother Abdus Sattar alias Sain, residents of Chak No,208/R.B., Police Station Saddar, Tehsil and District Faisalabad, alongwith Muhammad Tufail, were charged under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. For committing the murder of Muhammad Ismail and injuries-to the P.Ws. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who, vide his judgment dated 27- 11-1984, convicted Sardar All petitioner under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death and a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default to two years' R. I. He was also convicted under section 307, P.P.C.
And sentenced to seven years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default to two years' R.I. Abdus Sattar was also convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default to two years' R.I. Half of the fine on recovery was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Ismail while the remaining half equally distributed among the injured P.Ws. As compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Tufail was, however, acquitted of the delict by giving him the benefit of doubt.
3. The two convicts, namely, Sardar All and Abdus Sattar filed appeal against their conviction and sentence in the High Court whereas Muhammad Boota complainant filed a revision petition for enhancement of the sentence fo Abdus Sattar to death and also for enhancement of the compensation to be awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured P.Ws. In the High Court, the learned Judges after considering the case in depth upheld the conviction and sentence of Sardar Ali petitioner but acquitted Abdus Sattar of the charge by giving him the benefit of doubt.
The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not question the conviction of the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. But vehemently submitted for reduction in his sentence. He contended that on the fateful day about four hours prior to the occurrence Mst. Rashida (P.W.10) and Mst. Bakhshi (P,W.11) were sprinkling foul water of the pit in the street when Sardar All petitioner, his mother Mst.
Bavi and Mst. Jhando, wife of Muhammad Tufail (acquitted accused) came there and tried to stop them from throwing water in the street. This led to an exchange of abuses between them. Though they were separated but then Sardar Ali petitioner left the place extending threats to the female- folk of the complainant that he would teach them a lesson for throwing water in the street and also for abusing them. This was, he submitted, the only motive as there was no previous enmity between the parties. Furthermore, since the women-folk of the petitioner's side were abused by the complainant, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to a lesser punishment.
5. We have considered the above arguments in the light of the case of the prosecution and we do not find any merit in the above submissions in that Muhammad Ismail deceased was not a party in the earlier dispute and at the crucial time too he simply asked the petitioner not to abuse his women-folk but the petitioner instead gave him a stab blow and also inflicted injuries on Mst.
Rashida and Mst. Bakhshi. Thus, there does not exist any extenuating circumstance to impose lesser punishment on the petitioner. The petition is dismissed.