ZAHOOR AHMED vs The STATE
This review petition arose from a murder conviction under Sections 302 and 452, Pakistan Penal Code, where the petitioner had murdered his wife. His appeal and subsequent petition for leave to appeal were dismissed. The review was sought on the ground that the petitioner, as the father of the deceased's children (who were direct descendants), could not have been convicted under Section 302, PPC, in light of Sections 306 and 308, PPC. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that Sections 306 and 308, PPC, were not in force at the time the crime was committed in 1988, having been enacted in 1990. Therefore, the petitioner could not avail the benefit of these provisions retrospectively.
- Can a convict benefit from criminal law provisions that were not in force at the time the crime was committed?
- Does the principle of non-retrospective application of criminal law apply to provisions related to qisas and diyat?
- Are Sections 306 and 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code applicable to offenses committed before their enactment in 1990?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 306, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 308, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This review matter arises from the facts that Zahoor Ahmad petitioner was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad under section 302, P.P.C., on the charge that he had, on 11-12-1988 at 5-00 p.m., murdered his wife Mst. Bilquis in the house of her father namely, Bahadur, situate Chak No.497/GB of Police Station Mamun Kanjan, Tehsil Sammundari, District Faisalabad. He was convicted under sections 302, P.P.C., and 452, P.P.C., and sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302, P.P.C., and to five years' R.I., under section 452, P.P.C., with the directions that the sentences shall run concurrently. The appeal filed by him against his convictions and sentences was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 22-9-1993.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, he filed petition for leave to appeal in this Court which to was dismissed on 2-5-1994. He then filed instant Review Petition against the order dated 2-5-1994 this Court on the ground that four children born out of the wedlock of the deceased and the convict, being their direct descedants, the petitioner could not have been convicted under section 302, P.P.C., in view of the provisions of sections 306 and 308, P.P.C.
2. Learned Judge in Chambers was of the view that since the victim had children who are direct descendants of the convict, therefore, it was a fit case for suo motu review of the judgment dated 2-5-1994. So notice was issued to Advocate-General, Punjab.
3. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate-General for the State. The petitioner is in jail, so we have considered his petition very carefully. We decline to review the order dated 2-5-1994 of this Court on the short ground that provisions of sections 306 and 308, P.P.C., relied on by the applicant/petitioner were not in force on the date when Mst. Bilquis was murdered. The aforesaid provisions came into force in the year 1990 whereas the crime was committed in the year 1988. The petitioner thus cannot get any benefit of the provisions of law which were not in force at the the of occurrence.
4. In this view of the matter, the review petition is dismissed.