MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Muhammad Iqbal, was tried and convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Amir Abbas by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali, and sentenced to death. On appeal and reference, the High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence. Subsequently, pursuant to a Presidential Order dated 6-12-1988, the petitioner's death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life. The petitioner nonetheless sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court through a jail petition. The Supreme Court perused the judgments and held that the prosecution had fully established its case through motive, ocular account, recoveries, and medical testimony. The Court concluded that no further alteration in the conviction or sentence was warranted, as the petitioner had already benefited from the commutation of his death sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt.
- Whether the prosecution successfully established the case against the petitioner through motive, ocular account, recoveries, and medical testimony?
- Is any further alteration in conviction or sentence warranted after the commutation of a death sentence by presidential order?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner, Muhammad Iqbal, was tried under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Amir Abbas by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali. He was convicted under section 302, P.P.C.
2. And sentenced to death.
3. ' On appeal and reference the High Court confirmed the sentence of death and also dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner from jail. In the result, the petitioner stood condemned to death.
4. However, in consequence of the Presidential Order dated 6-12-1988; the death sentence of all the condemned prisoners was commuted to imprisonment for life and in pursuance thereof the petitioner was shifted to the general section of the jail to undergo the lesser sentence. In the meanwhile, however, the petitioner had submitted this petition for leave to appeal through jail.
5. ' I have perused the relevant judgments and agree with the view taken by the High Court that the motive, ocular account, the recoveries and the medical testimony all fully establish the case of the prosecution. The petitioner has already been lucky in the matter of sentence in pursuance of the beneficient orders of the President.
6. ' No further alteration either in the conviction or in the sentence is warranted.
7. ' I would dismiss this petition. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--I agree. 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.