UMAR HAYAT vs SAID SHAH and another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that altered a death sentence to life imprisonment and reduced a fine for murder. The trial court had convicted the respondent under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing him to death and a fine. The High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence, citing an extenuating circumstance. The Supreme Court considered the prosecution's own version, as stated in the F.I.R., that the respondent had a suspicion of the deceased having an illicit relationship with his wife. This suspicion was deemed a valid extenuating circumstance, as the respondent appeared to have killed the deceased to vindicate his family honour. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition.
- Can suspicion of an illicit relationship be considered an extenuating circumstance in a murder case?
- Is a High Court justified in altering a death sentence to life imprisonment based on extenuating circumstances?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's sentence reduction when extenuating circumstances are established?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed if the High Court's reasoning for sentence alteration is found sound?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 22 December, 1987 whereby death sentence of Said Shah respondent was altered to life imprisonment and the fine was reduced to Rs,5,000.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that Said Shah respondent alongwith Allah Ditta co-accused was tried for the murder of Khizar Hayat deceased and the trial Court vide its judgment convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death plus fine of Rs,10,000. Allah Ditta co-accused was acquitted.
3. On appeal of Said Shah respondent to the High Court his conviction was maintained but the sentence was altered from death to imprisonment for life and the fine was reduced as stated above. Hence the present petition.
4. ' The occurrence took place at 10 a.m. On 30 November, 1983. The F.I.R. Was lodged by the present petitioner who is brother of the deceased. A gun was recovered at the instance of Said Shah respondent but it is of no corroborative value. There are 3 eye-witnesses of the occurrence.
5. According to the medical evidence there were multiple firearm entrance wounds on the right side of chest of the deceased which were caused by a single shot. The motive is that Said Shah respondent had suspicion that the deceased had illicit relationship with his wife. The prosecution version is that on the fateful day while the deceased had come out from his house and was proceeding to his Dera the respondent armed with a gun alongwith the co-accused appeared from the front side. Then Said Shah respondent fired a shot at the deceased which hit him at the chest and he died.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there was no case for altering the sentence as it was a cold-blooded murder based on mere suspicion. But it is evident from the F.I.R. That the prosecution's own version was that Said Shah respondent had the suspicion that the deceased had developed illicit relationship with his wife. It is only this reason which was considered as an extenuating circumstance by the High Court as Said Shah respondent appears to have killed the deceased to vindicate his family honour. Since this is the position no interference is called for. This petition is therefore dismissed.