H NAWAZ vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the confirmation of a death sentence by the High Court regarding a murder conviction. The petitioner and a co-accused were alleged to have attacked the deceased following a prior altercation involving the deceased's objection to their presence in the village. The prosecution evidence, supported by eyewitness testimony and medical reports, established that the petitioner inflicted incised wounds on the deceased with a Khanjar, while the co-accused was acquitted due to lack of evidence regarding firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, convicted of murder, was entitled to the benefit of a presidential amnesty regarding the commutation of death sentences. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding no grounds to interfere with the factual findings of the lower courts. However, applying the precedent established in Eid Muhammad v. State (PLD 1993 SC 17), the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the presidential amnesty, thereby commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The request for the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was denied.
- Is a convict entitled to the benefit of presidential amnesty for the commutation of a death sentence based on the principles laid down in Eid Muhammad v. State?
- Does the Court have the discretion to deny the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a murder case?
- Can a death sentence be commuted to imprisonment for life based on presidential amnesty despite the absence of mitigating circumstances found by the lower courts?
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court by which death sentence awarded to him was confirmed. It was in respect of an incident which occurred on 12-9-1983 at 10.00 a.m., when petitioner Nawaz and co- accused Zulfiqar came in village Chowk where Muhammad Hamid Memon, Shah Muhammad, Bashir Ahmad, Akhtar Ali and Abdul Ghani were discussing election affairs. Hainid Ahmad deceased also reached there. He objected to the presence of the petitioner as he and other co- accused Zulfiqar had been expelled from the village because of their bad character. Both these accused got provoked and grappled with the deceased saying that they would remain in the Chak and a lesson would be taught to him. They were separated by the P.Ws. And asked to leave the Chalc. While leaving the place both of them issued threat that they would take revenge of their insult. On 14-9-1983 at about 3-00 p.m. The deceased and the complainant alighted from a bus and proceeded towards the tonga stand where Pehlwan and Muhammad Ali were standing waiting for a tonga. Deceased Hamid Ahinad was a few steps ahead of the complainant when Zulfiqar co-accused armed with pistol and the petitioner armed with a Khanjar suddenly appeared from behind a turning and challenging Hamid Ahmad, Zulfiqar fired at him which hit his left side.
2. Petitioner Nawaz attacked with the Khanjar which hit the deceased on his wrist as he tried to defend himself. The second blow hit the deceased on the back near the waist at the right side and he fell down. The complainant with the help of others tried to catch hold of the accused, but they ran away. Both the Courts below have relied upon the statement of the eye-witnesses which is corroborated by the medical report which certifies that there was an incised wound on the right side in the upper lumber region and another incised wound at the back of the right wrist joint. As there was no fire-arm injury, benefit of doubt was given to Zulfiqar. While confirming the death sentence the learned Judges observed that the petitioner opened wanton attack on an unarmed person on account of the motive mentioned in the F.I.R. None of the Courts below found any mitigating circumstance in favour of the petitioner. We do not find any ground for interfering with the judgment.
3. 1 Mr. M. Bilal, learned counsel submitted that in view of the observations made in Eid Muhammad v.
4. State (PLD 1993 SC 17) the petitioner is entitled to amnesty granted by the President and his case is covered by it. As the petitioner's case is covered by the observations in the said case, his death sentence is commuted to imprisonment for life. The learned counsel further contended that benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Should also be given to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to allow this benefit to the petitioner. With these observations the petition is dismissed.