Syed MUHAMMAD AFZAL SHAH vs AKBAR ALI and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted one respondent (Shaukat Ali) and commuted the death sentence of another (Akbar Ali) to life imprisonment for the murder of Amirul Hasan. The incident stemmed from a religious dispute between the parties regarding derogatory remarks about Sahaba-e-Karaam. The core legal questions were whether the High Court erred in acquitting the co-accused based on the nature of his injury and whether the commutation of the death sentence for the primary accused was legally justified given the circumstances. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the acquittal of the co-accused was based on a reasonable doubt regarding his participation, as his alleged injury could have resulted from a fall. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the commutation of the death sentence, agreeing that the background of religious provocation, while not strictly amounting to grave and sudden provocation, warranted a lesser sentence. The Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment correctly met the ends of justice and refused to interfere with the findings.
- Can a court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the background of a religious dispute?
- Is an appellate court justified in acquitting an accused when the injury attributed to them could reasonably be explained by a fall?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's appreciation of evidence regarding the quantum of sentence if the judgment meets the ends of justice?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Syed Muhammad Afzal Shah son of Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, resident of Jaithoke District Sialkot has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 12-4-1987 whereby respondent No, 2 Shaukat Ali was acquitted and Akbar respondent's death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life.
2. ' Respondents Nos.1 and 2 were tried by the Additional Sessions Jude, Sialkot on the basis of report lodged by Syed Muhammad Afzal Shah regarding the murder of his nephew Amirul Hasan. They were sentenced to death.
3. ' The occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 16-3-1983 at 8.45 p.m. In Mauza Jaithoke, at a distance of one mile from Police Station, Samberial. Report was recorded by Muhammad Yousaf Shah A.S.I.
4. Akbar Shah was alleged to be armed with dagger; Shaukat Ali with Sota. Both of them came running from their house and chased Amirul Hasan deceased. Shaukat Ali inflicted a Sota blow on the back of Amirul Hasan while Akbar Ali gave him a dagger blow which also injured the deceased on his back.
5. ' Motive was that deceased Amirul Hasan was Ahle Tashih whereas the respondents were Ahle Hadith. They had discussion on some religious proposition which developed into exchange of abuses, fist blows. This happened on the same day about four hours prior to the occurrence.
6. ' According to the prosecution the respondents made some objectionable remarks relating to Sahaba-e-Karaam. Both the parties were separated and they left for their houses but the respondents wanted to take revenge of the remarks uttered by Amirul Hasan.
7. The High Court after appreciating the entire evidence held that the offence committed by Akbar Ali was murder but keeping in view the background of the case and a fight over the derogatory remarks made by the deceased to the Ashaba-e-Karaam, High Court was of the view that there was an element of provocation though not sudden and grave which instigated Akbar to attack. The death sentence was accordingly not confirmed. Instead he was given life imprisonment.
8. Dealing with the case of Shaukat Ali respondent the High Court was of the view that his participation was doubtful because the injury attributed to him could be the result of fall on the ground. He was, therefore, given benefit of doubt and acquitted.
9. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the acquittal of Shaukat All and also argued for enhancement of sentence of Akbar Ali on the ground that the former had been wrongly acquitted and the latter was not entitled to the concession in the quantum of sentence because there was no grave and sudden provocation.
10. ' We are unable to agree with that. On the other hand we find that the judgment given by the High Court in the light of the evidence brought on record rightly meets the ends of justice. The same, therefore, calls for no interference.
11. ' Dismissed.