SHAUKAT ALI QAMAR vs ABDUL GHAFOOR and 3 others
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby the High Court dismissed the complainant's revision petition against the acquittal of two co-accused and allowed the convict's appeal in part by reducing his sentence of death to imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved whether the acquittal of the co-accused charged with conspiracy and abetment was justified and whether the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life was proper given the mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court held that tangible proof of conspiracy and abetment was lacking, rendering the acquittal unexceptionable, and that the reduction of sentence was justified due to mitigating factors such as a sudden flare-up, a single shot fired from a considerable distance, and suppression of true facts by the prosecution. The Court laid down that appellate interference with a sentence is unwarranted when the High Court's assessment of mitigating circumstances is sound and supported by the record.
- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the sentence of death to imprisonment for life based on mitigating circumstances?
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge of conspiracy and abetment against the acquitted accused?
- Whether interference is warranted against the concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by the courts below?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---One Liaqat All was gunned down on 18-1-1992 at about 9-30 A.M. In the area of Chak No,324/RB, Siddiqia Mills, Faisalabad. The F.I.R. Was made by Shaukat Ali Qamar, brother of the deceased, wherein three persons, namely Abdul Ghafoor, Rehmatullah and Zulfiqar Ali were charged for enacting the tragedy on account of refusal of the deceased to vacate a house before the decision of a pending civil suit. All the three accused nominated in the F.I.R. Were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad who, vide judgment dated 25-4-1994, acquitted Rehmatullah and Zulfiqar All of the charge of conspiracy and abetment but convicted Abdul Ghafoor under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death with direction to pay a sum of Rs,20,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation within the contemplation of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The convict filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court and the complainant also filed a criminal revision petition against acquittal of Rehmatullah and Zulfiqar Ali and for enhancement of compensation payable by Abdul Ghafoor. A learned Division Bench Of the High Court on coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had singularly failed to prove the allegations of conspiracy and abetment against the two acquitted accused and the case was not one in which capital punishment should be imposed, dismissed the revision petition and altered the sentence of death awarded to Abdul Ghafoor to imprisonment for life and allowed his appeal to that extent. Feeling aggrieved the complainant has sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 9-5-2001 rendered by the learned Division Bench of the High Court.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent Abdul Ghafoor was a hired assassin and the fatal attack on the deceased was premeditated, therefore, conversion of death sentence to imprisonment for life was unjustified and improper. It was also contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to substantiate the charge of conspiracy and abatement of murder against the two acquitted accused.
3. After having scanned the entire record we have come to the conclusion that tangible proof of conspiracy and abetment for murder is lacking, therefore, the respondents charged for the same have been rightly acquitted. The grounds of their acquittal contained in the judgment of the learned trial Court and upheld in impugned judgment cannot be called fanciful by any stretch of imagination. As regards the quantum of sentence suffice it to say that it is commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The learned Judges in the High Court have discussed the question of sentence in detail and altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life for the reasons that it was a sudden flare-up, Abdul Ghafoor had fired a single shot from a considerable distance and the prosecution had suppressed the true facts. The mitigating circumstances highlighted in the impugned judgment for awarding lesser sentence is unexceptionable.
' Consequently, the petition is dismissed and leave declined.