MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs FARHAN MEHMOOD and others
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which modified the death sentences of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to imprisonment for life, alongside a fine of Rs. 20,000 each, for an offense under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged this modification, arguing that the High Court’s decision was based on mere surmises and conjectures, contrary to established principles of criminal justice administration. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that respondent No. 1 had already served his sentence and been released, while respondent No. 2 remained in custody due to the non-payment of the fine. The Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine whether the High Court's modification of the sentence adhered to the settled principles governing the safe administration of criminal justice as established by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court recalled its earlier interim order that had prohibited the release of the respondents pending the disposal of the petition, acknowledging the factual change in the status of respondent No. 1.
- Whether the modification of a death sentence to life imprisonment by the High Court was based on sound legal principles or mere surmises?
- Does the release of a respondent after serving their sentence render an interim order prohibiting their release moot?
- 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 toimprisonment for life with a fine of Rs, 20,000 each under sections 302/34, P.P.C.
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 appeal 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.