Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: JAMIL HUSSAIN SHAH VS Respondent: SAJJAD JAVIDHonorable Justice Javid Iqbal
1988 S C M R 869
1988 S C M R 869
Present: AsIam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C. J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
JAMIL HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner
versus SAJJAD JAVID and another‑‑Respondents
Petition for Leave to Appeal No.100 of 1985, decided on 22nd February, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10th February, 1985 in Criminal Revision No.300 of 1981).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑
‑‑‑S.302‑‑Sentence‑‑Trial Court convicting and sentencing accused to death but High Court on appeal altering sentence of accused to life imprisonment‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether grounds on which lesser penalty had been awarded to accused were sufficient in accordance with generally accepted principles of safe administration of criminal justice.
Muhammad Aslam Choudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Sh. Amjad Ahad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1988.
ORDER JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioner in the following circumstances: Sajjad Javid respondent was tried for an offence under section 302, P.P..C. for the murder of Imtiaz Hussain aged 22 years by the Sessions Judge, Sialkot who vide his judgment dated 6th May, 1981 convicted him under the aforesaid section and sentenced him to death plus fine. On appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore the conviction was maintained but the sentence was altered from death. to that of imprisonment for life. In the present petition learned counsel for the petitioner‑complainant prays for the enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent to death.
The occurrence took place on 23rd April, 1980 at 5‑45 p. m. near bus stand of Village Kharota Syedan in District Sialkot. The FIR was recorded a few hours later at the instance of the present .petitioner. The respondent was arrested on 3rd May, 1980, and at his instance were recovered from him human blood‑stained chhuri as well as his shirt and shalwar which were also blood‑stained. The prosecution has produced three eye‑witnesses namely Jamil Hussain Shah petitioner, Jamshed and Kalimul Hassan. According to the medical evidence the deceased had five incised wounds on his person on the left side of chest, left thigh, lower part of left thigh, above left knee and one below this injury. The injuries had been caused by sharp‑edged weapon and the chest injury had resulted in his death. The motive for the crime is that 14/15 days before the occurrence the deceased gave secret information to the police on the basis of which an unlicenced khanjar was recovered from the respondent. According to the prosecution version, on the fateful day while the deceased was sitting near the bus stand the respondent came in a van and while alighting therefrom shouted at the deceased that he would teach him a lesson for giving information to the police as against him. Thereafter, he drew out a chhuri from the fold of his shalwar and started inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased as a result of which he died while he was being carried to the hospital.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that while altering the sentence of the respondent from death to imprisonment for life the following factors appeared to have influenced the mind of the learned appellate Court:
(i) That the respondent was 16 years old at the time of occurrence while the deceased was 22 years old;
(ii) That the deceased got him involved in an Arms Ordinance case whereas Jamil Hussain Shah petitioner i.e. uncle of the deceased had also got a criminal case registered against him; and
(iii) That the fact as to how quarrel started at the time of the occurrence had been suppressed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that there is nothing on the record to indicate that the cause of the occurrence or as to how the quarrel had started had been suppressed by the P.Ws. It was further argued that if the deceased or his uncle had furnished information to the police on which an unlicenced dagger had been recovered from the respondent, his murdering the deceased would not provide any justification for the award of lesser penalty, and that in the peculiar circumstances of the present case the young age of the respondent should not have been a consideration for the alteration of the sentence particularly when he was a bad character and had caused successive incised injuries to the deceased with a chhuri. We grant leave in this case in order to consider as to whether the grounds on which lesser penalty had been awarded to the respondent were sufficient in accordance with the generally accepted principles of safe administration of criminal justice.
S.Q./J‑19/S???? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.