HAKIM KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed by both the convict, Hakim Khan, and the complainant, Muhammad Akram, challenging a Lahore High Court judgment. The High Court had maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in altering the death sentence to life imprisonment based on the petitioner's tender age, the unproven motive, and the fact that only a single shot was fired. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the grounds for awarding the lesser penalty were neither flimsy nor artificial. The Court affirmed that while death is the normal penalty for murder, judicial discretion to impose a lesser sentence is justified when supported by evidence, such as the offender's age and the specific circumstances of the offense. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, declining to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion regarding sentencing. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not disturb sentencing discretion when it is grounded in valid evidentiary considerations.
- Is the death sentence the mandatory penalty for a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an appellate court reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the offender's tender age and the circumstances of the crime?
- Does the failure to prove a motive for murder necessitate the imposition of the death penalty?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' 'MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Hakim Khan convict (hereinafter called the petitioner ) and Muhammad Akram first informant (hereinafter called the complainant) seek leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14-11-1993, whereby conviction of aforesaid Hakim Khan under section 302 of the P.P.C. Was maintained but his death sentence thereunder was altered to imprisonment for life and with this modification his appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was tried on the allegation that on 14-11-1983 at 6-30 p.m. He committed the murder of Najabat Khan deceased near the gate of District Council Hall, Mianwali.
' The motive alleged by the prosecution was that more than 4 years prior to the occurrence one Iqbal was arrested for causing injury to the real brother of the petitioner; Najabat Khan deceased managed his release on bail stood surety for him over which the petitioner got annoyed.
3. At the trial Muhammad Akram complainant and Mumtaz Khan P.W. Furnished the ocular account of the occurrence. The prosecution also relied on the. Evidence relating to motive and recovery.
4. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegation against him.
5. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that Mr. Muhammad Asghar Rokari, the learned counsel for the petitioner now appearing before us and senior counsel Khan. Sultan Ahmad, both appearing for the petitioner in the High Court, "elected at the very outset not to contest the conviction". Despite that, the learned Judges examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that the conviction was well-founded. The learned counsel when confronted with the above observation of the High Court had not much to say.
' The death sentence of the petitioner was altered to imprisonment for life on the ground that (a) the petitioner was 'about 15/16 years old and was of tender age'. (b) Motive alleged by the prosecution was not proved for if the petitioner wanted of take revenge of the assault on his brother by Iqbal, he would have chosen aforesaid Iqbal as his target who was very much available being a resident of a house adjacent to petitioner's house, and (c) the petitioner fired only a solitary shot.
6. Raja Muhammad Anwar, the learned counsel for the complainant relying on 1986 SCM R 1056, 1991 SCM R 56 and PLD 1976 SC 452, contends that the death sentence being, the normal penalty in a murder case should not be withheld on flimsy and artificial grounds. That is true but the ground weighing with the learned Judges for awarding lesser penalty in this case are not flimsy and/or artificial. It is not disputed that the petitioner was 15/16 years old. The other reasons given by the learned Judges have the support of evidence. In the circumstances no interference with the impugned judgment is called for. Consequently both the petitions are dismissed.