SHABRATI vs QAMAR SULTAN And 4 Other
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant seeking the enhancement of sentences awarded to the respondents by the High Court. The respondents were initially convicted by the trial court under Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the High Court subsequently convicted them under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in failing to impose the normal penalty of capital punishment upon convicting the respondents for murder. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the High Court was legal. The Court reasoned that the High Court had exercised its discretion in declining to impose capital punishment, and further noted that imposing a death sentence would have inadvertently granted the respondents the benefit of a subsequent Presidential Order of Amnesty. Additionally, the Court considered the medical circumstances surrounding the deceased's death, including the development of gangrene and subsequent amputation, as relevant factors in the sentencing determination. The judgment affirms the appellate court's discretion in sentencing matters.
- Does the High Court have the discretion to award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty for a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a sentence of life imprisonment where the High Court has explicitly considered and declined to impose capital punishment?
- Is a sentence of life imprisonment for murder considered legal if the appellate court provides reasons for departing from the normal penalty of death?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 30-10-1988 for the enhancement of sentence of the respondents.
2. The facts, in brief are that it is alleged that on 15-6-1985 the respondents and Muhammad Naseem armed with pistols, Muhammad Nawaz and Abdul Latif armed with Sotas appeared at the scene.
3. They raised a lalkara, Qamar Sultan fired at Muhammad Ashraf which hit him on his leg.
4. Muhammad Ashraf fell down on the ground. Respondent Muhammad Naseem then fired at the complainant Shabrati but Shabrati laid himself on the ground in order to avoid the fire. The fire-of Muhammad Naseem respondent missed complainant Shabrati but had hit Muhammad Sadiq a passerby. Respondents Muhammad Nawaz and Abdul Latif then inflicted their Sota blows on the person of Shabrati.
5. The motive for the said occurrence was that Muhammad Ashraf deceased son of Shabrati and Ghulam Abbas, brother of P.W. Atta Muhamuiau had a quarrel with respondent Muhammad Naseem and injured Muhammad Naseem respondent. A case under section 307/34, P.P.C. Was registered against the deceased Muhammad Ashraf and Ghulam Abbas. The respondents had caused the injuries as a result of the said motive.
6. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as hereunder:-
(1) Qamar Sultan,. Muhammad Naseem, Muhammad Nawaz and Abdul Latif, under Section 304, P.P.C. 3-1/2 years' R.I. Each and fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default 1 year R.I. Each.
(2) Under Section 324/34, P.P.C. 6 months' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default 3 months each.
(3) Under Section 324/34, P.P.C. 6 months' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default 3 months each.
7. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and the fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The High Court convicted the respondents under Section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life each. The sentence of fine and award of compensation ordered to be the same.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the High Court came to the conclusion that the accused had committed the culpable homicide amounting to murder, then the normal penalty should have been awarded. Therefore, the order of the High Court to that extent is illegal and needs reversal by this Court. The High Court has not given any reason for not awarding the normal sentence as provided under Section 302, P.P.C.
9. In para. 38 of the judgment it has been stated that "after anxious consideration we are of the view that this is not a case for imposing the capital punishment". Though the High Court has not recorded any reason but we are not inclined to grant Leave to Appeal for the following reasons:---
(i) The respondents had been convicted under section 304, P.P.C. By the Additional District Judge on 21-12-1986. The High Court convicted the respondents under Section 302/34, P.P.C. On 30-10- 1988. In case the High Court had awarded the capital punishment, the respondents would have the benefit of the Presidential Order of Amnesty after 7-12-1988. The sentence awarded by the High Court is legal.
(ii) The deceased Muhammad Ashraf was injured on 15-6-1985 and died on 1-7-1985. The deceased had received the injuries on left leg upper part and according to the doctor who performed the postmortem, the leg was amputated and wound was not stitched with foul swelling done by the surgeon after developing gangrine of left foot. He observed that this injury was covered by antiseptic dressing and it was mentioned in the bed head ticket that the gangrine was developed for which amputation was done.
10. In view of what has been stated above, we do not see any force in this petition. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.