Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302, 302(b), 299(ee)

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 164, 342, 374, 544-A, 367(5)

Law: Frontier Corps Ordinance, 1959

Section: 2(a), 2(g), 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 9,245

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 52(i) , 7(a)

Tagline : Principles of sentence in case of extra judicial custodial  killing.

Summary

The case concerns the extra judicial custodial killing of Mohammad Hayat, a young university student, by a member of the Frontier Corps (FC) Balochistan. The incident occurred in Turbat, Balochistan, when the victim, unarmed and in custody, was brutally shot by the appellant (Shadiullah) following explosions targeting FC vehicles. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code was unanimously upheld, but the sentence was modified from death to life imprisonment by a majority, while a dissenting opinion supported the death penalty. The ruling meticulously evaluates the responsibilities of law enforcement, the aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing, and the principles of deterrence and proportionality in such crimes.

Core Points

• The appellant, an FC Balochistan member, shot the unarmed student eight times while he was in custody, constituting extra judicial killing.-
• The incident took place after explosions injured FC members, but the victim was neither armed nor involved in the attack.-
• The conviction under Section 302(b) PPC (murder) was supported by direct eyewitness and forensic evidence, including a ballistics match and judicial confession.-
• The law requires officers and members of law enforcement agencies to exercise the highest standards of care and fiduciary duty towards citizens.-
• The court discussed aggravating factors: abuse of authority, breach of trust, brutality, killing in custody, lack of remorse, and public outrage (fasad-fil-arz).-
• No valid mitigating circumstance (like provocation or mental impairment) was established, as the confession was retracted and there was no remorse.-
• The role of sentencing discretion under Section 302(b) PPC was analyzed; the court must weigh all aggravating and mitigating factors, with deterrence, retribution, and proportionality as central principles.-
• Legal precedent prohibits leniency to law enforcement officers for custodial killings; society’s condemnation and deterrence are emphasized.-
• The trial court’s decision to award death was backed by precedent and statutory guidance, seeing no justification for a lesser sentence.-
• The dissenting opinion, supporting death penalty, highlighted the impact of impunity and unchecked law enforcement violence in society.

Law And Section