Pakistan Case Law
1999 SCMR 2414

MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD alias BASHIR vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1999 SCMR 2414
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Appeal No, 514 of 1995 out of J.P. 106 of 1991,
Date1998-10-14
Judge(s)Raja Afrasiab Khan, Sh. Ijaz Nisar and Sh. Riaz Ahmed
Authored byRaja Afrasiab Khan
ResultSentence reduced.
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The appellant, Muhammad Bashir Ahmad, sought reduction of his death sentence for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Leave to appeal was previously granted limited to the quantum of sentence in view of a remote motive. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the alleged motive was rooted in an incident occurring 22 or 23 years prior, during which intervening period the parties had resided amicably in the same village without any untoward incidents. The prosecution failed to establish what immediately preceded the occurrence, leaving the motive shrouded in mystery. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the existence of a stale and unproven immediate motive warranted the substitution of the death penalty with imprisonment for life, while increasing the fine payable as compensation to the legal heirs and extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appeal was partly allowed on this basis.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a remote and unproven motive can serve as a mitigating circumstance to convert a death sentence into imprisonment for life?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the immediate trigger of an occurrence justify the reduction of a sentence from death to life imprisonment?
  • Can the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be extended upon the partial allowance of a criminal appeal?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
quantum of sentencedeath sentenceimprisonment for lifemotivemurdercriminal appealsentence mitigation

1. ' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN J.---On 18-12-1995, petition of the appellant, Muhammad Bashir was dismissed by this Court on merits. However, leave was granted to him to consider the quantum of sentence awarded to him with the following order:- "For murder of Khaligdad deceased on 28-2-1997 at 5.30 p.m. The petitioner Muhammad Bashir was convicted for offence under section 302, P.P.C. On 26-1-1989 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, and sentenced to death and fine. On 10-6-1991 a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissed his appeal and maintained conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

2. ' The petitioner seeks leave for appeal against his conviction and sentence before this Court.

3. ' With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner we have gone through the record of the case and impugned judgment. The incident has taken place during the broad daylight at 5.30 p.m. The report thereof was lodged at the police station at 7.00 p.m. The distance between the place of vardat and the police station is 5/6 miles hence there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. The names of the eye-witnesses Allah Bux and Dost. Muhammad appear in the F.I.R. The above said both witnesses have fully implicated the petitioner for the offence. Though Allah Bux brother-in-law of the deceased but he has no grudge against the petitioner to falsely implicate him. Witness Dost Muhammad is totally independent. The evidence of the above said two witnesses was found to be confidence inspiring by the two Courts below. No infirmity was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to discard it. However, an ignorable contradiction regarding number of shots was pointed out which in our view is not sufficient to discard their evidence. In such a situation the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the motive was far fetched of about 22/23 years back which may not be sufficient to maintain death sentence of the petitioner. In such view of the fact we maintain the conviction of the petitioner for offence under section 302, P.P.C. And dismiss his petition to that extent. However, we grant leave to appeal to examine if on the motive alleged by the prosecution sentence of imprisonment for life instead of death sentence be awarded to the petitioner. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly."

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent at some length. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant despite service. It is evident from the above order that the earlier incident which provided motive to the appellant to commit the aforesaid offence, took place about 22/23 years ago. It is in the evidence of Allah Baldish P.W. 6 that since the date of murder of Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Bashir, the appellant and the deceased lived in the same village. In other words, no untoward incident took place in the last about 22/23 years between the parties. It can, therefore, safely be said that the parties to this case lived amicable and peacefully in the village. It was the bounden duty of the prosecution to have proved as to what actually happened immediately before the occurrence in hand took place. This has not been done by the prosecution.

4. This being the position, motive is shrouded in mystery. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to award lesser sentence to the I appellant on the aforesaid ground. The sentence of the appellant is converted from death to imprisonment for life to meet the ends of justice. The fine is, however, increased from Rs,10,000 to Rs,1,00,000 which, on recovery, would be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall be extended to the appellant. With these observations, the appeal is partly allowed.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.