IMRAN SHAH vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal and murder reference concern the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Imran Shah, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant sought to compound the offence. The Sessions Judge, Sargodha, verified that the widow and daughter of the deceased had pardoned the appellant in the name of Allah, waiving their right of Qisas, and that Diyat money for the minor son had been secured. However, the parents of the deceased did not join the compromise. The core legal question was whether the partial compromise by some legal heirs of the deceased constitutes a mitigating circumstance sufficient to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment. Relying on precedent from the Supreme Court, the Court held that a pardon by some legal heirs acts as a significant mitigating factor. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and answered the murder reference in the negative.
- Can a partial compromise by some legal heirs of a deceased serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence?
- Does a pardon by the widow and children of a deceased victim justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable when a death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,687 of 2000 filed by Imran Shah, appellant who was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to death with further direction to pay Rs,30,000 as compensation, in default six months' S.I. Conviction and sentence was recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal vide judgment dated 13-5-2000.
' Murder Reference No,589 of 2000 for confirmation of death sentence or otherwise of convict appellant shall also be replied through this single judgment.
2. During pendency of instant appeal, an application seeking permission to compound the offence was moved. A copy of the said petition alongwith allied documents was sent to Sessions Judge, Sargodha for report. Report from the Sessions Judge has been received. According to said report, Mst. Ghulam Fiza (widow), Iram Shahzadi (daughter) of the deceased have verified the compromise and have stated. That they have forgiven the convict appellant in the name of Almighty Allah after having waived their right of Qisas. The deceased was also survived by Shakeel Haider the minor son. Defence Saving Certificates to the tune of Rs,1,13,000 with regard to Diyat money of minor has been purchased. The report further reveals that Muhammad Ramzan and Mst.
Fatima Bibi the father and mother of Muhammad Riaz deceased have not! Compromised with the convict.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that widow, son and daughter of the deceased having compounded the offence, the sentence of death is not called for. In support of this submission, learned counsel has produced a copy of the judgment delivered in Criminal Petition No,776/L of 2001.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has no cavil to the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant after having read the verdict of the Honourable apex. Court.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have respectfully gone through the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court in Criminal Petition No,776/L of 2001.
In the precedent cited, two accused were tried by the learned trial Court. The accused having held the deceased in Japha was awarded sentence of imprisonment for life while the accused who had given Chhuri blow was awarded death sentence. In appeal before the High Court, the accused having the role of Japha was acquitted. The death sentence of other accused was converted into life imprisonment on the ground that one of the heirs of the deceased, that is, his wife had pardoned him. Against the judgment of the High Court, the complainant approached the Honourable apex Court through. Criminal Petition No,776/L of 2001 where their Lordships upheld the order of the High Court by observing that the deceased had illicit relations with sister of respondent and her father was compelled to marry her to the deceased and that the incident took place within a short period of four/five months of the said marriage which circumstance together with pardon was rightly held as mitigating circumstance to award lesser punishment. In these circumstances, treating the pardon having been given by widow, son and daughter of the deceased to be a mitigating circumstance, we thot'gh maintain the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. But reduce his sentence from death to imprisonment for life with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the death sentence of Imran Shah appellant is not confirmed and Murder Reference is replied in the negative, Sentence reduced.