Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302,324,452, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii)

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 221 TO 240,233,237,342,537

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10-A

Summary of the Judgment:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii) & 452---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10A--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 237, 342 & 537---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah damiyah, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah and house-trespass--Re-appraisal of evidence---Right to a fair trial---Defective charge---Fact not confronted to accused---Grave procedural irregularity---Effect---Sentence reduced--Accused was convicted by Trial Court for committing three murders and was sentenced to death on three counts---Validity---Omission to frame a charge for a distinct offence is a substantial illegality, rendering the trial a nullity--- Such omission is not a mere irregularity, that can be cured under section 537, Cr.P.C. rather, is a defect, that strikes at the root of proceedings, necessitating intervention to prevent miscarriage of justice---Procedural safeguard under section 342, Cr.P.C. ensures that accused is confronted with all incriminating evidence to afford him opportunity to explain circumstances against him---Omission to "frame a charge", coupled with failure to put a material accusation to accused under section 342, Cr.P.C., was a grave procedural irregularity that could not be remedied under section 537, Cr.P.C., as it resulted in a fundamental breach of the right to a fair trial---In such mitigating circumstances imposition of maximum penalty was not warranted---Absence of a proven motive, coupled with circumstances indicating absence of premeditation, necessitated reconsideration of quantum of punishment--Accused was entitled to a lesser sentence, as Courts are obligated to ensure that punishment awarded is proportionate to facts and circumstances of case---Supreme Court maintained conviction of accused but converted sentence of death into imprisonment for life---Appeal was allowed.

M. Younus Habib v. The State PLD 2006 SC 153; Arbab Khan v. The State 2010 SCMR 755; Khan Zado v. The State 2015 PCr.LJ 1561; Noor Muhammad Khatti v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 1889; Md. Mosaddar Hoque v. The State PLD 1958 SC 131; Zahid Shahzad v. The State 1981 PCr.LJ 844; Nemai Adak v. The State AIR 1965 Cal 89; Istahar Khondkar v. Emperor AIR 1936 Cal 796; Muhammad Akram alias Akrai v. The State 2019 SCMR 610 and Ghulam Rasool v. The State 2025 SCMR