Mst. NOORAN vs ALTAF HUSSAIN and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant Mst. Nooran seeking the enhancement of the sentence of respondents Altaf Hussain and Muhammad Sadiq from imprisonment for life back to the death penalty originally awarded by the trial court. The respondents were tried and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Maqbool Ahmad alias Maloo, which conviction and modified sentence of life imprisonment were upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether mitigating circumstances existed to justify the reduction of the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error in altering the sentence, noting that the respondents acted under the influence of their 80-year-old uncle who was lying ambushed with them. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts may sustain lesser penalties where mitigating factors such as familial influence are present.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life when mitigating circumstances are present?
- Does acting under the influence of an elder co-accused constitute a mitigating circumstance for the quantum of sentence in a murder case?
- Can a complainant maintain a petition for leave to appeal for the enhancement of a sentence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.-- Respondents Altaf Hussain and Muhammad Sadiq alongwith Rahma acquitted accused, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad and were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. For the murder of Maqbool Ahmad alias Maloo and sentenced both of them to death and fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default to suffer further R.I. For one year each; their co-accused Rahma, was however, acquitted by extending him the benefit of doubt vide his judgment dated 9-9-1985. In appeal before the Lahore High Court, the learned Judges of the Division Bench maintained the conviction of the respondents but altered their sentences from death to imprisonment for life. Their sentence of fine and direction as to compensation were upheld and the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also not given to them, vide impugned judgment. This petition for leave to appeal by Mst. Nooran complainant is for the enhancement of sentence of the accused respondents before this Court.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the case against the respondents is proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the learned High Court should have maintained the normal penalty of death which has been provided under section 302, P.P.C. For the offence of murder as awarded to them by the trial Court. There were no mitigating or extenuating circumstances which justify the lesser penalty of life imprisonment. A perusal of the record shows that Altaf Hussain aged 24 years and Muhammad Sadiq aged 30 years (both the re, pondents led by their uncle Rahma aged 80 years were lying ambushed in the Sarkandas while Rahma raised lalkara and both the respondents thus acted under the influence of their uncle Rahma. The learned High Court, under the circumstances did not consider the extreme penalty of death as appropriate.
3. We also find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the learned High Court with regard to the quantum of sentence awarded to the said respondents, and therefore, do not consider it a fit case for any interference in the impugned judgment.
4. ' The result is that this petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD AMAN alias PINO vs THE STATE 1993 P Cr. L J 690
- Muhammad Boota vs The Director Public Instruction (School Education) 2017 [M] C.L.R. 792