Mst. NUR ELAHI vs MUHAMMAD ASHGAR and 3 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the widow of a deceased victim against a Lahore High Court judgment that converted the death sentences of the respondents into life imprisonment, alongside a jail petition by the convicts challenging their underlying conviction for murder. The respondents were originally convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge for the murder of Shah Rasool and sentenced to death. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentences, reasoning that the prosecution failed to prove the motive, leaving the origin of the occurrence shrouded in mystery, and thus deemed the death penalty inappropriate. The petitioner contends that the motive was proven and that, regardless, the absence of motive does not preclude the imposition of the death penalty, especially given the brutal nature of the injuries inflicted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to both the petitioner and the convicts to examine whether the High Court was legally justified in altering the death sentence to life imprisonment in the circumstances of the case.
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a motive for murder automatically preclude the imposition of the death penalty?
- Is the High Court justified in altering a death sentence to life imprisonment solely on the ground that the origin of the occurrence remains unknown?
- Does the brutal nature of injuries inflicted on a victim necessitate the imposition of the death penalty over life imprisonment?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This order will dispose of Criminal Petition No,344-L of 1996 filed by the widow of Shah Rasool deceased against the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 17-9-1996 whereby death sentence awarded to the respondents has been converted into life imprisonment as also the Jail Petition No,101 of 1996 filed by the convicts challenging their conviction under section 302/34 P.P.C. And praying for their acquittal.
2. Muhammad Asghar, Shaukat Ali and Shakir alias Mal (respondents Nos.1 to 3 in Crl. P. No,344-L of 1996) were tried by an Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal for causing the murder of Shah Rasool and were convicted and sentenced to death with a fine of Rs,10,000 each or in default of payment of fine to undergo two years R.I. They were also directed to pay compensation of Rs,10,000 each to the legal heirs of the deceased. On appeal filed by the convicts and the reference received from the trial Court for confirmation of death sentences awarded to the respondents, learned Judges of the High Court vide the impugned judgment maintained the respondents' conviction but altered their death sentences to imprisonment for life.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition by the widow of the deceased (Crl. P. No,344-L of 1996) and have also perused the impugned judgment of the High Court. The learned Judges held that the motive set up by the prosecution was not proved and, therefore, "what immediately transpired between the parties is shrouded in mystery," and "what originated the occurrence is not known". In the circumstances, it was observed that awarding of death sentence may not be in the interest of justice. Sentence of death awarded to each respondent was accordingly converted to life imprisonment.
4. Learned counsel contends that the motive stood duly proved on the record and in any case, absence of the motive or failure of prosecution to prove it is not a valid ground for not exacting the death penalty which is normal sentence for the offence of murder. Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondents had acted in a most brutal manner as they inflicted as many as 15 incised wounds on the body of the deceased whose right upper arm was fractured, his right foot was completely amputated from above the ankle-joint, his left arm was also almost amputated and his left leg too was amputated. The respondents did not, therefore, deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence.
5. In view of the contention raised by the learned counsel, leave to appeal is granted to the petitioner in Crl. P. No,344-L of 1996 to examine whether the High Court was justified in altering the death sentence of the respondents to life imprisonment. Leave is also granted to the respondents in the Jail Petition.