Syed SOHAIL AHMED and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from petitions filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the petitioners under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, along with convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for kidnapping, robbery, and impersonation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of death was merited under the circumstances of the case, specifically considering discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecutrix regarding the number of assailants. Upon hearing the contentions of the petitioners, the State, and the complainant—all of whom conceded that capital punishment was not appropriate—the Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and modified the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the remaining convictions, ordering all sentences to run concurrently, and extending the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the convicts. The key principle laid down is that where the appropriateness of the death penalty is successfully challenged and conceded by the opposing parties based on evidentiary inconsistencies, the Supreme Court may convert the petition into an appeal and commute the capital sentence to imprisonment for life.
- Whether discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecutrix regarding the number of assailants warrant the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Can the Supreme Court convert petitions for leave to appeal into appeals and dispose of the matter regarding sentence with the consent of the parties?
- Whether the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is applicable when a sentence of death is commuted to life imprisonment?
- Section 10(4) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 170, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 171, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---Fact in brief leading to the filing of these petitions are that Syed Sohail Ahmed and Sajjad Ahmed petitioners were tried by Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,1, Lahore, and vide his judgment dated 20-8-1999 awarded the sentence of death to both the petitioners under section 10(4)11/7/79 (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Under section 365-A, P.P.C. Both of them were also sentenced to life imprisonment and under section 392, P.P.C.
2. To 10 years R.I. Each and in default to suffer R.I. For 6 months. They were also sentenced under section 170, P.P.C. To two years R.I. Each and a fine of Rs,1,000 and in default to further undergo R.I.
3. For one month. They were further sentenced to 3 months R.I. Each under section 171, P.P.C. A learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court vide its judgment dated 16-2-2000 dismissed their appeal and confirmed their death sentence. The petitioners have called in question the said judgment of the Lahore High Court by filing the aforesaid petitions in this Court.
2. The case was argued at some length. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently, contended that in any case it was not a case for awarding capital punishment. According to him in the F.I.R.
4. Two persons were alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix but In the Court she alleged that three persons had raped her. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this fact makes it a case for lesser sentence. When learned counsel for the complainant' as well as State were questioned about this, they frankly stated that it was not a case for capital punishment.
5. Since question of sentence alone was agitated by the learned counsel for the parties, we convert these petitions into appeals and with their consent dispose of the same by modifying the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall also be extended to the convicts. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
6. Sentence reduced.
Cited by 1 case
- ZAFAR Versus State 2010 PCrLJ 129