Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 555 of 1980, decided on 19th October, 1981.

(Against the judgment and order, dated 22‑9‑1980 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1979).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Sentence‑‑Reduction of death sentence into one of life imprisonment‑‑Challenged on grounds that there was no evidence of young age of accused; that solitary knife blow was inflicted on vital region of chest; and earlier incident of altercation was too far removed to provide mitigation‑‑Leave granted to consider whether there was proper justification for High Court for reducing punishment of accused respondent.

Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 19th October, 1981.

This is a petition by Muhammad Ramzan, complainant in the case, against the judgment of the High Court, dated 22‑9‑1980 whereby on appeal by respondent Muhammad Saleem, the sentence of death awarded to him by the trial Court under section 302 for the murder of Muhammad Afzal (deceased) was reduced to one for imprisonment for life while maintaining the sentence of fine.

2. According to the prosecution, respondent Muhammad Saleem had committed the murder, on 28‑4‑1978 at 9 p.m. near the Truck Stand at Chowk Mote Fiqa near Mandi Bahauddin. The deceased had later died in hospital. The motive was that the deceased had taken objection to the respondent's making indecent gestures while passing in front of his house and that this had led to an altercation between the two earlier the same day. The respondent, who was arrested on 30‑4‑1978, led to the recovery of a knife P.3 on 5‑5‑1978. The ocular testimony was furnished by Muhammad Ramzan P.W. 8 the complainant and maternal uncle of the deceased, Muhammad Akhtar P.W. 9 and Muhammad Babar P.W. 10. They were supported by the evidence of recovery and of motive. The respondent's plea was of false involvement due to enmity.

3. Before the High Court the respondent's counsel did not contest the merits of the prosecution case but urged for mitigation of the sentence. The reasons which prevailed with the High Court for reducing the sentence were that the respondent was a lad of about 16 years of age; that he had inflicted only one blow and that the occurrence had been preceded by the incident of altercation in the morning.

4. Learned counsel contends that there is no evidence of the age of the respondent; that the knife blow, though solitary, had been inflicted on the vital region of the chest and that the morning incident was too far removed to provide mitigation. In these circumstances we allow the petition and grant leave to consider whether there was proper justification for the High Court for reducing the punishment of the respondent.

M.I. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.