GUL MUHAMMAD GONDAL vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that modified the conviction and sentence of the respondents. The respondents were originally convicted by the Sessions Judge, Gujrat, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, receiving life imprisonment and a compensation order. On appeal, the High Court altered the conviction to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reduced the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, citing the respondents' young age (14/15 years) at the time of the offense. The petitioner sought to challenge this leniency, arguing that the nature of the crime—poisoning a young boy—did not warrant such mitigation. The Supreme Court reviewed the material on record and the impugned judgment. It held that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, combined with the tender age of the offenders, justified the High Court's lenient approach under Section 302(c). Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision to maintain the reduced sentence.
- Does the tender age of an offender justify a lenient sentence under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's exercise of discretion regarding sentencing if the reasoning is based on the peculiar facts of the case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---Muhammad Nawaz and Nadeem respondents were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat, vide judgment dated 27-11-1997 under section 302/34, P.P.C.
And sentenced to imprisonment for life and directed to pay a sum of Rs,1,00,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or suffer 2 years further R.I. In default. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended. The appeal filed by the respondents. Was partly accepted by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide judgment dated 1-6-2001, and not only their conviction was recorded under section 302(c), P.P.C. but the sentence of imprisonment for life was also reduced to 10 years' R.I. Each. A lenient view in the matter of sentence was taken by the High Court for the reason that both of them were about 14/15 years of age.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents did not deserve any leniency as they had poisoned a young boy to death.
3. After going through the impugned judgment and the material on record we do not find any force in the contention. Notwithstanding the tender age of the respondents a case for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence is made out on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which require determination of the question of sentence within the purview of section 302(c), P.P.C. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and .
Cited by 1 case
- AMAN KHAN Versus THE STATE 2004 PCRLJ 568