IMTIAZ AHMED and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns two criminal petitions for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had confirmed the death sentence of the petitioner, Imtiaz Ahmed, for murder, while dismissing the State's appeal against the acquittal of three co-accused and the complainant's revision application. The trial court had convicted the petitioner under Section 302 and Section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court reviewed the conviction and found no grounds to interfere with the finding of guilt, noting the petitioner was arrested at the scene with the weapon of offense. However, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically to examine whether the extreme penalty of death was justified given that the prosecution's alleged motive for the murder was disbelieved by the lower courts. Regarding the complainant's petition against the acquittal of the co-accused, the Court dismissed the petition on merits and due to it being time-barred. The key principle established is that the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive for a murder may necessitate a reconsideration of the appropriateness of the death penalty.
- Can the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive for murder be a ground to reconsider the imposition of the death penalty?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal liable to be dismissed if it is barred by limitation and lacks a plausible explanation for the delay?
- Does the recovery of a weapon and arrest at the scene provide sufficient basis to uphold a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 449, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C. J.---The above mentioned two criminal petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment of a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court dated 9-10-1996 whereby death sentence awarded by the trial Court to the petitioner, Imtiaz Ahmed, was confirmed while criminal acquittal appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of 3 co-accused and the revision application filed by the complainant, were dismissed.
2. The petitioner, Imtiaz Ahmed, was tried for the murder of Ansar Ahmed along with Rukhsar Ahmed son of Ghulam Muhammad, Riaz Ahmed and Ghulam Ahmed sons of Fateh Muhammad.
Before the Sessions Judge Gujrat. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Rukhsar Ahmed, Riaz Ahmed and Ghulam Ahmed in the case but convicted Imtiaz Ahmed under section 302, P.P.C. He was sentenced to death with fine of rupees one lac and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer two years' R.I. Out of the fine on recovery, a sum of Rs,60,000 was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. Imtiaz Ahmed was also sentenced under section 449, P.P.C.
To imprisonment for life with fine of Rs,50,000 and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. For six months. The trial Court directed that both the sentences shall run consecutively. Against the judgment of the trial Court petitioner Imtiaz Ahmed filed appeal against his conviction and award of death sentence while the State preferred acquittal appeal against the co-accused who were acquitted in the case. A revision application was also filed by the complainant questioning the acquittal of co-accused in the case. A learned Division Bench of the High Court dealt with all the above matters simultaneously and by judgment dated 9-10-1996 confirmed the death sentence awarded to Imtiaz Ahmed while dismissed the acquittal appeal filed by the respondents as well as the revision application preferred by the complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Imtiaz Ahmed, at length.
3. In so far conviction of Imtiaz Ahmed under section 302, P.P.C. Is concerned, we find that he was arrested at the spot and a 7MM rifle was also recovered from his possession. Both the Courts below have dealt with the ocular evidence in the case critically and have reached the conclusion that the petitioner had murdered Ansar Ahmed. We are, therefore, satisfied that in so far the conviction of the petitioner Imtiaz Ahmed under section 302, P.P.C. Is concerned, no execution can be taken.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner very vehemently contended that the motive for the murder, which was alleged by the prosecution, was not believed by the two Courts below and as the Court was never taken into confidence with regard to the motive of murder in the case, the petitioner Imtiaz Ahmed could not be awarded extreme penalty. Of death in the case. ; We are, accordingly, inclined to grant leave to appeal to consider whether in the circumstances of the case, extreme penalty of death awarded to the petitioner was justified? In so far the petition filed by the complainant seeking leave to appeal against acquittal of other co-accused in the case is concerned, we find no merit in the same. Apart from it, the petition is also barred by limitation for which no plausible explanation has been offered. Criminal Petition No,16-L of 1997 filed by the complainant is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused .