SOHAIL IQBAL vs THE STATE

ORDER

' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted to the convict to examine whether "in the circumstances there being no previous enmity, quarrel over petty matter of making noise while seeing a game and early youth of the petitioner," "the extreme sentence of death was appropriate or the alternate".

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had gone to see a Badminton match in Robbert Hall, Khanewal alongwith Abdul Jabbar deceased. During the course of the game, there was exchange of hot words and grappling between the appellant and the deceased Abdul Jabbar. The latter slapped and gave fist blows to Sohail Iqbal. Sohail Iqbal tried to lift the chair to strike Abdul Jabbar but the people present there saved him. The appellant was thrown out of the Hall. He went straight to his house about a few furlongs away and came there armed with a gun. He fired a shot at the deceased which struck him on his left shoulder. As a result thereof, the deceased was hit. The deceased was removed to the hospital where he died. The appellant denied his participation in the occurrence and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity.

3. Leave was granted only to examine whether in view of the young age of the appellant, he was not entitled to a punishment or sentence other than that of death.

4. From the record it appears that the date of birth of the appellant was traced to be 9-10-1964 which makes his age at the time of occurrence which took place on 12-8-1986 about 21 years 8 months. The trial Court had recorded the age of the appellant by appearance in December, 1987 when the statement under section 340, Cr.P.C. As 16/17 years while in November, 1987 when his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded as 16 years. The High Court Rules and Orders (Volume III) in Chapter 22-A, paragraph 8, lays down the following instructions of the High Court to the Criminal Courts:-- "....The Judges are also 'pleased to direct that all Criminal Courts should in future enter the ages of the convicts in the body of their judgments, with a view to being directly seized with the question of age when deciding the sentence to be imposed on a juvenile or adolescent."

5. In view of discrepancy in recording the age of the appellant it is only fair that the benefits should be extended to him particularly in view of the precedent of this Court quoted by the learned counsel for the appellant i.e,, Javid Iqbal v. The State (1982 SCM R 447).

6. In the circumstances, we accept the appeal only to the extent of sentence, set aside the sentence of death and substitute it by life imprisonment. This substitution of sentence has been made in view of the young age of the appellant at the time of committing of the offence.