| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 1413 2007 SLD 1413 2007 SCMR 1413 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.297 and Criminal Petition No.176 of 2001, decision dated: 9-05-2007
RANA BHAGWANDAS, ACTG. C.J, TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND NASIR-UL-MULK, JJ
M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Ch. Munir Sadiq, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State
Criminal Appeal No.297 and Criminal Petition No.176 of 2001, decision dated: 9-05-2007
RANA BHAGWANDAS, ACTG. C.J, TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND NASIR-UL-MULK, JJ
M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Ch. Munir Sadiq, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State
MUHAMMAD RIAZ and another
VS
THE STATE and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302/34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.439---Qatl-i-Amd-Sentence of life imprisonment awarded by Trial Court to two accused was enhanced to death sentence by High Court in revisional jurisdiction---Validity---Three accused were charged for murder of deceased with their respective weapons---Motive of Offence was financial dispute between parties---Incident occurred in the dark of night at 9-00 p.m. when a bulb attached to a wooden rod was available at place of occurrence---Prosecution witnesses had pointedly ascribed act of each accused in firing at different parts of body of deceased from their respective weapons---Medical report revealed that two injuries were caused to deceased from some distance---Difficult to ascertain in ordinary course of events as to which injury was caused by which accused---Both injuries were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death of deceased in ordinary course of nature---Medico-Legal Expert during cross-examination did not deny possibility that both injuries could be the result of a single fire---Not easy to ascertain as to which of the accused out of three assailants was responsible for causing such injuries---Discretion in matter of sentence exercised by Trial Court did not suffer from perversity or any arbitrariness---High Court, though was bound to record valid, cogent and strong reasons for awarding capital punishment to accused, but had not assigned reasons for discarding opinion of Trial Court in matter of sentence--Supreme Court set aside judgment of High Court and restored conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302---Qatl-i-Amd---Determination of quantum of sentence--- Principles. No doubt, normal penalty for an act of commission of Qatl-i-Amd provided under law is death, but since life imprisonment also being a legal sentence for such offence must be kept in mind wherever the facts and circumstances warrant mitigation of sentence, because no hard and fast rule can be applied in each and every case. JUDGMENT RANA BHAGWANDAS, ACTG. C.J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment, of the Lahore High Court,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492