Muhammad Aslam vs Farhan Mehmood And Other
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the appeals of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 but modified their sentences from death to life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the reduction in sentence was based on surmises and conjectures, violating established principles of criminal justice. The Supreme Court of Pakistan noted that respondent No. 1 had already been released after serving his sentence, while respondent No. 2 remained imprisoned due to non-payment of fine. The Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court's modification of the sentence conformed to settled principles governing the safe administration of criminal justice. Additionally, the Court recalled its earlier interim order that had stayed the release of the respondents pending the disposal of the petition.
- Whether a modification of a death sentence to life imprisonment by the High Court is in accordance with the settled principles governing the safe administration of criminal justice?
- Can an interim order staying the release of a convict be recalled if the convict has already served out their modified sentence during the pendency of the petition?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.-- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 10.4.2001 whereby a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, while dismissing the appeal of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 modified their sentence of death to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.
20,000/- each under Sections 302/34, PPC.
2. It is inter alia argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid conversion of sentence of the respondents has simply been allowed on surmises and conjectures, which is totally against the established principles of administration of criminal justice, In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a number of precedents of this Court.
3. We have considered the above contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the entire record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. We have noticed that respondent No. 1, Farhan Mehmood, has already been released from jail after serving out his sentence while respondent No. 2, Arif Masih, according to his learned counsel, could not be released on account of non-payment of fine.
4. Leave to granted to consider, whether the aforesaid modification in the sentence of the respondents by the High Court was in accord with the settled principles governing the safe administration of. Criminal justice as pronounced by this Court.
5. Since respondent No. 1, Farhan Mehmood, has already been released from jail after serving out his sentence, as such we recall the interim order dated 12.2.2000 passed by this Court whereby it was. Directed that the respondents shall not be released from jail till the disposal of the petition.