GHULAM SARWAR vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM alias AKKU and another
This matter involves two cross-petitions for leave to appeal arising from a criminal conviction. The respondent was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his father-in-law and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court. The complainant filed a petition seeking enhancement of the sentence from life imprisonment to death, while the convict filed a petition challenging the conviction itself. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's decision to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, rather than the death penalty, warranted appellate interference given the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court, having considered the High Court's finding that the respondent had been humiliated prior to the occurrence, held that the alternate sentence awarded by the High Court did not call for interference. Consequently, the Court dismissed the complainant's petition for enhancement. Following this, the convict's counsel did not press the petition challenging the conviction. Both petitions were dismissed, affirming the High Court's original order.
- Does the humiliation of an accused prior to the commission of a murder constitute a valid ground for the High Court to award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the High Court if the High Court has duly considered the mitigating circumstances of the case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---Respondent stands convicted under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of his father-in-law and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine etc. Vide order of the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide order dated 9-3-1992.
2. The first petition (Cr.P. No, 117/L/1992) is by the complainant for enhancement of sentence and the second (Cr.P. No, 139/L of 1992) by the convict against his conviction.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the learne. High Court erred in reducing the sentence from death to life imprisonment.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the convict respondent is that he had gone to fetch his wife and son and was slapped by this father-in-law. The occurrence had come about by chance.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order of the High Court wherein it took notice of the respondent being humiliated we do not think that the alternate sentence awarded to the respondent by the learned High Court calls for interference by this Court.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
6.. In view of the above, learned counsel for the convict does not press the petition.
' Both the petitions stand dismissed. 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.
Cited by 3 cases
- Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, J OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED vs Messrs MARATHON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and another 2013 CLD 1483
- Oil & Gas Development Company Limited vs M/s. Marathon Construction 2013 KLR Civil Cases 191
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR FEDERAL SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD vs MUHAMMAD HARIS HASSAN and others 2004 PLD Karachi 119