NEHAR KHAN vs SHAUKAT ALI and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his revision petition challenging the sentence awarded to the respondent. The respondent had been convicted for the murder of the petitioner's son under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but was sentenced to life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. The core legal question was whether the trial court and the High Court erred in exercising their discretion to impose the lesser penalty of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly exercised their discretion, noting that the circumstances immediately preceding the crime were shrouded in mystery and that the possibility of provocation could not be ruled out. The Court affirmed that the lower courts had applied settled legal principles in determining the appropriate sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment.
- Can a court impose the lesser penalty of life imprisonment for a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the circumstances preceding the crime are unclear?
- Is the possibility of provocation a valid ground for a court to decline the imposition of the death penalty in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.---This is a petition by Nehar Khan complainant for leave to appeal against judgment dated 6th April, 1988, whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed his revision petition assailing the order of the learned trial Court, in the murder case of his son, in which respondent Shaukat Ali was found guilty under section 302, P.P.C.But was awarded the lesser penalty of life imprisonment. The appeal of respondent Shaukat Ali against his conviction and sentence was separately dismissed by a Division Bench of the same High Court vide judgment dated 6th April, 1988, in which the learned Judges had considered the question of sentence and agreed with the view of a trial Court and held that as it was not clear from the evidence what transpired immediately before the commission of the crime, which was shrouded in mystery, the trial Court rightly declined to impose the extreme penalty of death, because there was possibility of some provocation to the respondent which could not be ruled out.
2. ' In the impugned judgment also the same reason was reiterated by the learned Single Judge which was found justified on the record of the evidence.
3. We have heard the learned counsel and he has not been able to point out anything in the evidence on record to the contrary indicating that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge was not justified. Learned Judge proceeded on the basis of settled principles of law in rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner.
4. ' We, therefore, find no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.