MUHAMMAD SULTAN vs MUHAMMAD SHAH DIN and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the trial court's conviction of the respondents for murder and attempted murder. The trial court had initially convicted both respondents, sentencing one to death and the other to life imprisonment, along with fines and compensation orders. Upon appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction of the primary accused but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, while acquitting the co-accused due to a lack of evidence. The complainant challenged this decision, raising questions regarding the High Court's acceptance of a self-defence plea despite no injuries to the accused, the discarding of eyewitness testimony, and the propriety of commuting the death sentence. The Supreme Court, finding it necessary to re-examine the evidence to ensure the fair administration of justice, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that a re-appraisal of the evidence was required to determine if the High Court's appreciation of the facts and its sentencing discretion were based on sound judicial principles.
- Can a plea of self-defence be accepted when none of the accused party members sustained injuries?
- Under what circumstances is a High Court justified in discarding the testimony of eyewitnesses in a criminal trial?
- Is the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment by a High Court subject to judicial review regarding the soundness of the principles applied?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 326, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 21-12-1989 at 2-00 p.m. a case under section 302/307/326/34, P.P.C.
Was registered with Police Station Meclodganj, District Bahawalnagar against Muhammad Shah Din and Khuda Bakhsh for the murder of Muhammad Amir and causing injuries to Haji Ghulam Hassan, Muhammad Sultan, Muhammad Ismail, Mst. Meher-unNisa and Hakim Ali. The trial Court vide its judgment, dated 17-10-1992 convicted Muhammad Shah Din and Khuda Bakhsh under section 302/34, P.P.C. Shah Din was sentenced to death while Khuda Bakhsh was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Shah Din was ordered to pay fine of Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) while Khuda Bakhsh was ordered to pay fine of Rs,30,000 (rupees thirty thousand) or in default to undergo R.I. For one year each. Under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Both were directed to pay compensation of Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) each to the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Amir or in default to undergo R.I. For six months each. They were also convicted under section 307/34, (Part II), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine of Rs,15,000 (rupees fifteen thousand) each for five times or in default to undergo R.I. For one year each. They were ordered to pay compensation of Rs,30,000 (rupees thirty thousand) each to all the five injured.
Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was given to them. On appeal and reference, a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide its judgment, dated 5-3-1998 maintained the conviction of Muhammad Shah Din. However, his sentence was reduced from death to imprisonment for life. Khuda Bakhsh was-acquitted of the charge for lack of evidence. This is a petition for leave to appeal by the complainant against the impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel has raised the following pleas:--
(a) Whether the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court was justified in accepting the plea of self-defence when none of the respondents/accused partymen were injured."?
(b) Whether the High Court rightly discarded the testimony of the eyewitnesses wherein the case of the prosecution stood fully proved to the hilt?
(c) Whether the appreciation of evidence by the High Court was based on sound judicial principles?
(d) Whether the reasonings arrived at by the High Court in passing an order of acquittal was based on equitable considerations?
(e) Whether the computation of death sentence to life imprisonment by the learned Divisions Bench was based on sound judicial principles?
(f) Whether the High Court has erred in law to reduce the sentence of death to life imprisonment?
3. To consider the above points, leave to appeal is granted to reappriase evidence to ensure fair administration of justice. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount returnable to the District Magistrate, Bahawalnagar shall also issue to the respondents.