IMRAN TAJAMAL KHAN vs MUMTAZ AHMED alias KAKA and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 23-5-2001, whereby the respondent's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Irfan Tajamal was upheld, but his sentence of death was altered to imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence and altering the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that the sentence of death was rightly altered because the murder was preceded by a quarrel and the firing occurred during a grappling process between the accused and the deceased. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that the existence of a sudden quarrel and grappling prior to the fatal shot can constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.
- Whether the High Court is justified in altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life when the murder is preceded by a quarrel and grappling?
- Does a sudden grappling between the accused and the deceased serve as a mitigating circumstance in murder trials?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---The respondent, Mumtaz Ahmed alias Kaka, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of one Irfan Tajamal. He was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to death and also directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs,20,000 under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of the deceased. The appeal preferred by him was, however, partly accepted by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 23-5-2001 and while his conviction under section 302, P.P.C.
Was upheld the sentence of death was altered to imprisonment for life. The complainant has sought leave to appeal against the said judgment with the prayer that the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court may be restored.
2. A lenient view in the matter of sentence was taken by the learned Judge in the High Court for the reason that the murder was preceded by a quarrel between the parties and firing was made by the accused during the process of grappling between him and the deceased.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record we feel no hesitation in holding that the sentence of death was rightly altered to imprisonment for life by the High Court. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and leave declined. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.