Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL RAHIM VS Respondent: RIAZ AHMAD
1988 S C M R 907
1988 S C M R 907
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
ABDUL RAHIM‑‑Petitioner
versus
RIAZ AHMAD and another‑‑Respondents
Petition for Leave to Appeal No.238 of 1987, decided on 26th March 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 6th July, 1987 in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 1983/Murder Reference No.75 of 1983).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑
‑‑Ss .302 & 30 7‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) , Art .185(3)‑‑Sentence of death‑‑Reduction‑‑Mitigating circumstance‑‑Principles of safe administration of criminal justice‑‑Respondent convicted and sentenced to death for committing murders of his father‑in‑law, brother‑in‑law and injuring mother‑in‑law‑‑Motive for crime being that his wife being unhappy with him was residing with her parents for about two months and they did not let her go with the accused‑husband‑‑High Court reduced his sentence of death to imprisonment for life‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider as to whether reasons given by High Court for altering sentence under S.302. P. P. C. were proper and in accordance with well‑established principles of safe administration of criminal justice.
Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th March, 1988.
ORDER
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench whereby conviction as well as the sentence of the respondent Riaz Ahmad under section 307, P.P.C. have been maintained, whereas while maintaining his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. his sentence has been altered from death to life imprisonment plus fine. Briefly the background is that Riaz Ahmad respondent was tried for offences under section 302/307, P.P.C. and the trial Court convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. for the murders of Muhammad Yar and Muhammad Ibrahim his father‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law (Sala), and sentenced him to death on each count plus fine. He was further convicted under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' R.I. plus fine for murderous assault on Mst. Sarwar Mai his mother‑in -law. On appeal as stated above the death sentence on two counts has been altered to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. The present petition is fox enhancement of sentence to death as awarded by the trial Court.
Respondent Riaz Ahmad had committed two murders and had made a murderous assault on his mother‑in‑law. The respondent was married to Mst. Rehm Ilahi daughter of Muhammad Yar deceased and Mst. Sarwar Mai injured P.W. She being unhappy with her husband had left him about two months prior to the occurrence and was residing in the house of her parents. The respondent on numerous occasions had tried to bring her back but the parents of the girl did not let her go with the respondent. 'This had annoyed the respondent who entering the house of the two deceased at midnight gave Kassi blows on the face of Muhammad Ibrahim deceased while he was asleep but when Muhammad Yar deceased and Mst. Sarwar Mai P.W. woke up and tried to apprehend him, he gave Kassi blows on the head and shoulder of Muhammad Yar deceased and also gave blows to Mst. Sarwar Mai P.W.
It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the respondent had maltreated his wife and she had left him and was staying with her parents who did nor allow him to take her away, his annoyance on that account did not mean that he should go to the extent of murdering his father‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law and causing serious injuries to his mother‑in‑law. It was further argued that the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench had no justification in the circumstances of the case to alter the sentence from death on two counts to life imprisonment for the reason that he had been trying hard for the return of his wife and children but could not succeed due to persistent refusal of the two deceased. It was further submitted that again this could not be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the awarding of lesser penalty particularly when the finding of the learned judges was to the effect that the case of the respondent did not fall in the category of legal insanity within the meanings of section 84, P.P.C.
Leave is granted in this case to consider as to whether the reasons given for altering the sentence under section 302, P.P.C. in p para. 9 of the impugned judgment were proper and justified in accordance with the well‑established principles of safe administration of criminal justice.
M. I. /A‑200/S Leave granted.