SAID MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arose from a jail petition filed by Said Muhammad, who was convicted under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Sargodha, for his involvement in an abduction case, resulting in a death sentence. While the appellant was not present during the actual abduction, evidence established his role in facilitating the escape of the main culprits by signaling that the passage was clear. The appellant did not contest the conviction on merits but sought a reduction in the sentence, arguing that his role was minor compared to the co-accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the conviction but accepted the plea regarding the sentence. The Court held that, given the appellant's secondary role compared to the primary abductors, the ends of justice were better served by commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court established the principle that a distinction in sentencing is appropriate where an accused's participation is significantly less culpable than that of the principal offenders.
- Can the Supreme Court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the minor role of an accused compared to co-accused?
- Is an accused who facilitates an abduction by signaling a clear passage liable for conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the principle of sentencing distinction apply when an accused's participation is secondary to that of the principal offenders?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---The above appeal arises out of a jail petition sent by Said Muhammad who was convicted under section, 365-A, P.P.C. By judgment, dated 18-12-1991 of the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Sargodha and sentenced to death and a fine of rupees one lac or in default to suffer two years R.I. There were two other co-accused who were tried with the appellant namely, Ghulam Muhammad and Faiz Muhammad. Trial of the co-accused took place in absentia for the same offence and both were convicted and awarded the same sentence. We have heard the arguments of Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Altaf Elahi Sheikh, learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, who has appeared for the State.
With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have referred to the relevant record.
2. Three persons were abducted namely, Ghulam Mohyuddin, Khalid Mahmood and Abdur Rehman on 25-4-1991. After a few days, two of the abductees namely, Abdur Rehman and Ghulam Mohyuddin were released but abductee Khalid Mahmood was not released and, till the disposal of the case, the whereabouts of Khalid Mahmood were not known. Appellant Said Muhammad was not present at the time the actual abduction had taken place. The main culprits were Ghulam Muhammad and Faiz Muhammad who were tried in absentia, as observed earlier, and three others namely, Dost Muhammad, Abdul Khalid and Aziz Ullah who could not be apprehended but some time later they were killed in a police encounter.
The role assigned to appellant Said Muhammad is that, after the main culprits had abducted the three abductees and were taking them in a vehicle, on the way, Said Muhammad was stationed who told the abductors that the passage was clear. From the evidence the involvement of Said Muhammad in the offence is established as has been found by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. In the circumstances of the case, Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned counsel for the appellant, has not pressed this appeal on merits but only argued the appeal on the question of sentence. According to learned counsel, it was a fit case where appellant Said Muhammad should have been awarded the lesser sentence.
3. In present case it would appears from the evidence that the leading part in the abduction was that of the co-accused and compared to their role, the role of appellant Said Muhammad was minor in nature. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that a distinction can be made in the case of the present appellant in so far as the question of sentence is concerned. Reference in this regard can be made to a judgment of this Court in the case Shafoo v.
State (1968 SCM R 719).
4, We are of the view that in this case ends of justice will adequately be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced. This appeal is dismissed as not pressed in so far as the conviction of appellant Said Muhammad is concerned, but, as regards the sentence, the sentence of death awarded to appellant Said Muhammad is commuted to life imprisonment. Sentence of fine is not disturbed. The appellant will be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P.0 .
' This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Cited by 11 cases
- Muhammad Zeeshan vs The State 2022 SHC 488, 2024 YLR 364
- Muhammad Ameer vs The State 2022 SHC 456, 2024 YLR 289
- Ali Akbar and others vs The State 2023 YLR 2643
- RAJAB ALI Versus State 2021 YLRN 13
- ASHFAQUE AHMED Versus State 2022 PCrLJN 38
- Saindad vs The State 2021 YLR 1719, 2020 SHC 342
- Iftikhar Ahmed alias Imtiaz and another vs The State 2022 YLR 84
- JALAL AHMED Versus State 2020 PCrLJN 99
- TARIQ HAMEED PARACHA and others vs DANISH AHMED and another 2019 YLR 2246
- ATIF KHAN Versus State 2019 YLRN 78
- Sajid S/o Noor Ahmed vs The State 2022 SHC 370