Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FAZAL AHMAD VS Respondent: BASHIR AHMAD And Another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s):Nasim Hasan Shah, Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Haleem, Zaffar
Hussain Mirza, M. S. H. Qureshi Title: FAZAL AHMAD vs BASHIR AHMAD And Another Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 369 of 1980 Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 1978 Date of Judgment:1984-10-29 Reported As: 1986 SCMR 281 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.-- This petition seeks enhancement of sentence passed on Bashir Ahmad by the trial Court for causing murder of Muhammad Yusaf. He was convicted under section 304, Part-I, P.P.C. And ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and further to pay a compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000 to the heirs of the deceased or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The High Court after taking into account the fact such as the one-fourth share holding in the tube- well, the injuries caused to Riaz, the co-accused, for which no explanation was given, the infliction of single spear blow to the deceased and the period he remained in detention and during trial as sufficient for reducing the sentence from ten years to nearly five years in detention which was already undergone. However, at the same time, the High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,000 to 10.000 as the earlier amount was not found adequate. In the facts and circumstances of the case that it was a sudden fight and the fatal blow was caused in the heat of the moment, it is difficult to accept that the High Court did not exercise a judicious discretion in reducing the sentence. Added to it is the increase in the amount of compensation which further goes to show adequacy of the sentence as a whole. Besides four years have elapsed since the High Court had passed the impugned order and if the sentence had not been reduced, this respondent would have served out the sentence by now. We are conscious that it was not on account of any fault of the petitioner that this delay had occurred, but nonetheless the fact that this sentence would have been undergone.