ASAD ULLAH vs ZULFIQAR and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Asad Ullah, challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court that converted the death sentence of respondent Zulfiqar to life imprisonment for the murder of Barkhurdar. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reducing the sentence of the respondent while maintaining the life imprisonment sentence of his co-accused, Naik Muhammad, given that both were convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the same incident. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the High Court correctly identified that the respondent's role was comparable to that of the co-accused, whose life imprisonment had already been confirmed. The Court held that because the incident occurred at the spur of the moment and no valid distinction could be drawn between the culpability of the two accused, the reduction of the sentence was appropriate. The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court’s reasoning aligned with established principles for the safe administration of criminal justice and dismissed the petition.
- Can a High Court convert a death sentence to life imprisonment if the accused's role is comparable to a co-accused already sentenced to life imprisonment?
- Is a sentence reduction justified when an occurrence takes place at the spur of the moment without premeditation?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's sentencing discretion when the reasoning aligns with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Through this petition, Asad Ullah petitioner-complainant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30-5-2001 of the Lahore High Court through which Division Bench of the said Court after upholding the conviction of respondent No,1 under section 302, P.P.C.
For causing death of Barkhurdar, converted his sentence of death to life imprisonment.
2. According to the prosecution story, the dispute arose on the question of possession of the land and cutting of 'Keekar' trees standing over it. According to the complainant story, the accused claimed that 'Keekar' trees were standing on their part of the land in joint Khata whereas according to the petitioner, the said portion of the land was in his possession.
3. The trial Court after considering the evidence produced by the prosecution convicted both Zulfiqar, respondent No,1 and Naik. Muhammad, the other accused person under section 302, P.P.C.
And found that the injury attributed to respondent No,1 with Sota' on the left side of the head of the deceased Barkhurdar was the cause of his death and the other injury attributed to Naik Muhammad co-accused, though also contributed to his death but respondent No,1 was awarded death sentence and Naik Muhammad life imprisonment.
4. The petitioner-complainant filed appeal before the High Court with permission against the award of life imprisonment to Naik Muhammad which was dismissed by the said Court. When Murder Reference and the appeal of respondent No,1 accused against his conviction and sentence of death came up for hearing, the Division Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that the case of Zulfiqar as regards causing of injury on the head of the deceased was at par with the said Naik Muhammad whose life imprisonment had been confirmed by the High Court, therefore, keeping in view the circumstance that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment, distinction could not be drawn between the case of Zulfiqar and Naik Muhammad, therefore, the sentence of death of Zulfiqar was converted into life imprisonment against which exception has been taken by the petitioner through this petition.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the reasons given by the High Court for converting the death sentence of respondent No,1 to life imprisonment are in accordance with principles laid down by the superior Courts for safe administration of criminal justice and do not suffer from any illegality.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.