Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1980, decided on 25th March, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 4th November, 1979, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1980).
‑‑ Art. 185(3) ‑Penal Code (XLV ‑ of 1860), S. 302 ‑ Murder‑Sentence ‑ Leave to appeal granted to consider whether petitioner could be awarded lesser sentence of imprisonment for life.‑[Sentence].
‑‑ S. 302‑Murder‑Sentence‑Accused's motive in murdering his ‑uncle stated to be purchase of accused's land by deceased for his son‑No details given to enable Court to consider whether or not circumstances giving rise to alleged grievance could possibly entitle accused to lesser sentence under S. 302‑No reason found to interfere with impugned judgment by way of reduction of sentence of death awarded to accused‑‑Sentence of death maintained.
Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
Bashirullah, Addl. A.‑G., N.‑W. F. P. for the State.
Date of hearing : 25th March, 1984.
.‑This is an appeal by Qasim appellant through jail by the leave of this Court, granted on 30‑1‑1980, only on the question of sentence.
2. He was tried and convicted for the murder of his own uncle Abid Khan, and was sentenced to death for the same. His appeal before the High Court failed and his sentence of death was confirmed vide the impugned judgment.
3. The appellant was the only assailant mentioned in the F. 1. R. lodged by the deceased himself. The F. I. R. subsequently constituted as dying declaration duly proved by the scribe and the doctor who examined the deceased. According to the leave granting order itself, the guilt has been squarely brought home to the appellant and the only question that needs consideration is that of sentence, i. e. whether or not the appellant should, in the circumstances of this case, have been awarded the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. The only circumstance mentioned in the leave granting order which might have entitled him to lesser sentence, is the motive for the murder. The motive is stated to be that the land of the appellant, or a substantial part thereof, was purchased by the deceased for his son, which was resented by the appellant.
4. We have read the F. I. R.; the statement of the appellant as well as; relevant portions of the evidence where a mention is made of this grievance, but we notice that apart from the mere mention of the afore‑mentioned sale of land, no other detail thereof has been given so as to enable us to consider whether or not the circumstances giving rise to the alleged grievance were such as could possibly entitle the appellant to the lesser sentence under section 302, P. P. C. As such we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment by way of reduction of sentence awarded to the appellant.
The appeal is consequently dismissed.
S. Q. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer