SULTAN and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sultan and Muhammad Iqbal, challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld their convictions and death sentences. The core legal questions concern the age of the petitioner Muhammad Iqbal at the time of the incident, specifically whether he was a minor entitled to a lesser sentence, and the impact of the prosecution's failure to examine a key witness regarding the alleged motive. The petitioners' counsel, while not pressing the petition on the merits of the conviction, focuses the challenge on the quantum of sentence. The Court grants leave to appeal to examine these specific issues, particularly the claim of minority and the evidentiary implications of abandoning a material witness. The judgment establishes that where a credible claim of minority is raised supported by documentation, and where the prosecution fails to produce a key witness on motive, there are sufficient grounds to grant leave to appeal to reconsider the appropriateness of the death sentence.
- Can a petitioner challenge the quantum of sentence while abandoning the challenge to the merits of the conviction?
- Does the production of a School Leaving Certificate under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute sufficient grounds to grant leave to appeal regarding the age of an accused?
- What is the legal consequence of the prosecution giving up a key witness regarding the motive of a crime?
- Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---Petitioners Sultan and Muhammad Iqbal have assailed the judgment dated 26-9-2000 of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby, the appeal of petitioners was dismissed and their conviction and sentence of death was maintained and Murder Reference was also decided in the affirmative.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Iqbal alias Balla was minor at the time of incident. In his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. This petitioner had produced School Leaving Certificate according to which he was born on 15-2-1976 thus on the date of incident, he was about 13 years of age and was, therefore, entitled to lesser punishment. Learned counsel further argued that prosecution has not been able to prove the motive so much so that the main witness namely Mst. Karam Ellahi, a witness of the alleged motive, was not examined and was given up without any justification. In such circumstances, learned counsel urged that he will not press this petition on merits but will advance arguments only on the quantum of sentence if leave to appeal is granted.
3. ' Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted to consider the above points.