GHULAM MUSTAFA vs AKBAR KHAN and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Ghulam Mustafa, challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 7-6-1987. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was legally justified in altering the respondent's conviction from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which resulted in a reduction of the respondent's sentence from life imprisonment to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a reduction in the imposed fine. Upon reviewing the judgment and the reasoning provided by the High Court, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court had provided cogent reasons for its decision and had exercised its judicial discretion in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition. The case affirms the principle that an appellate court may exercise its discretion to alter a conviction and sentence when supported by valid legal reasoning.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of judicial discretion in altering a conviction and sentence?
- Is the reduction of a sentence from life imprisonment to seven years under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, legally permissible when supported by cogent reasons?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Grievance of Ghulam Mustafa petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 7-6-1987 is that there was no legal justification in altering the conviction of the respondent who had been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murder of Farooq which took place on 8-7-1982 at 7 a.m., from section 302, P.P.0 to 304, Part II, P.P.C.
2. And thereby reducing the sentence of imprisonment for life to seven years' R.I. And fine Rs, 30,000 to Rs,5,000.
3. ' We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also seen the judgment of the High Court and looked into the reason given for altering the conviction and sentence of the respondent.
4. Learned Judge of the High Court was of the view that offence committed by the respondent fell within the ambit of section 304, Part II, P.P.C. He gave cogent reasons for that and thereby exercised his judicial discretion in accordance with law.
5. ' We don't think the judgment of the High Court calls for any interference. The petition is hereby dismissed.