KHAIR DIN and others vs MUHAMMAD NIAZ and others
This matter arises from criminal petitions filed against a common judgment of the High Court, which reduced the sentence of a respondent from death to life imprisonment on the ground of lack of preplanning or premeditation. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence under the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the prosecution evidence and consider the validity of the sentence reduction. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may grant leave to appeal to reappraise evidence and examine the exercise of discretion by the High Court in reducing a criminal sentence from death to life imprisonment.
- Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence from death to life imprisonment on the ground of lack of premeditation?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to reappraise prosecution evidence regarding the reduction of a sentence?
ORDER
1. ' By this common order we propose to dispose of both the Criminal Petitions Nos.683-L and 693-L of 2001 as they have arisen out of common judgment and involved identical questions of law and facts.
2. ' Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner contended that the High Court was not justified to reduce the sentence of Muhammad Niaz, respondent from death to life imprisonment on the ground that there was no preplanning or premeditation for the respondent to commit the offence.
3. Leave to appeal is granted in Criminal Petition No,683-L of 2001 to reappraise the prosecution evidence and to consider whether the High Court in circumstances of the case was justified to reduce the sentence of the respondent from death to life imprisonment.
4. ' Leave in Criminal Petition No,693/2001 is also granted. Both the appeals shall be heard together.