2021 PLP 1532 (SCMR)
Mst. NASEEM — Petitioner Versus FARHAD KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 1532 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. NASEEM — Petitioner Versus FARHAD KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1532 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 1532 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1532 (SCMR) (Mst. NASEEM — Petitioner Versus FARHAD KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record and Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ms. Abida Safdar, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the State.
- 2. Ms. Abida Safdar, learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, contends that the shocking case of filicide is an open and shut episode, admitting no space to treat the respondent with any degree of leniency; after taking us through the ocular account furnished by Mst. Naseem Khan and Salma Khan, respondent's wife and daughter respectively, the learned Law Officer read excerpts from respondent's confessional statement to demonstrate that he had acted most callously and in a manner deliberate and calculated and, thus, there was no occasion for the High Court to overstretch his culpability into the remit of clause (c) of the section ibid; she next argued that the deceased in his prime youth was 'Masoom-ud-Dam' and his gruesome murder with five consecutive shots has inflicted indelible abiding trauma to his devastated sisters and mother and, thus, a proportionate sentence possibly presents them the only temporal solace; she next argued that the respondent contested the charge without remorse or regret and denied his culpability throughout and as such in the absence of any specific plea, High Court ran into grievous error to let him off with a brief period of incarceration which tantamount to denial of justice both to the deceased as well as the family. Contentions merit consideration; leave is granted to reappraise the entire evidence with a view to secure ends of justice. Send for the respondent through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.200,000/-, returnable to the Assistant Registrar of this Court at Peshawar. Station House Officer shall execute the warrants within a fortnight.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr. A. No.446-P of 2014)
Ss. 302(b) & 302(c)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Qatl-i-amd
Petition for leave to appeal challenging conversion of conviction from S. 302(b) to S. 302(c), P.P.C. and resulting reduction in sentence
Contentions on behalf of prosecution that present case of filicide (accused killing his own son) was an open and shut episode, admitting no space to treat the accused with any degree of leniency; that the accused had acted most callously and in a deliberate and calculated manner, thus, there was no occasion for the High Court to overstretch his culpability into the remit of S. 302(c), P.P.C.; that the deceased in his prime youth was 'Masoom-ud-Dam' and his gruesome murder with five consecutive shots had inflicted trauma on his sisters and mother and, thus, only a proportionate sentence would present them with any solace; that the accused contested the charge without remorse or regret and denied his culpability throughout and as such in the absence of any specific plea, High Court ran into error to let him off with a brief period of incarceration which tantamount to denial of justice both to the deceased as well as the family
Supreme Court granted leave to consider the said contentions of the prosecution. Ms. Abida Safdar, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Respondent was tried by the learned Sessions Judge Peshawar for committing Qatl-i-amd of Haris Abdullah, 18/20, no other than his only son on 2.10.2012 within the precincts of Police Station Hayatabad; the incident was reported by his wife Mst. Naseem Khan who witnessed the occurrence alongside her two sisters; no motive was cited in the crime report, however, in his retracted confessional statement, he blamed the deceased for inaptitude in his academic pursuits. Upon indictment, he claimed trial that resulted into his conviction under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 vide judgment dated 28.6.2014; he was sentenced to imprisonment for life, however, the High Court after converting his conviction into clause (c) of section ibid reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him vide impugned judgment dated 25.1.2018, being assailed by the State.
2. Ms. Abida Safdar, learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, contends that the shocking case of filicide is an open and shut episode, admitting no space to treat the respondent with any degree of leniency; after taking us through the ocular account furnished by Mst. Naseem Khan and Salma Khan, respondent's wife and daughter respectively, the learned Law Officer read excerpts from respondent's confessional statement to demonstrate that he had acted most callously and in a manner deliberate and calculated and, thus, there was no occasion for the High Court to overstretch his culpability into the remit of clause (c) of the section ibid; she next argued that the deceased in his prime youth was 'Masoom-ud-Dam' and his gruesome murder with five consecutive shots has inflicted indelible abiding trauma to his devastated sisters and mother and, thus, a proportionate sentence possibly presents them the only temporal solace; she next argued that the respondent contested the charge without remorse or regret and denied his culpability throughout and as such in the absence of any specific plea, High Court ran into grievous error to let him off with a brief period of incarceration which tantamount to denial of justice both to the deceased as well as the family. Contentions merit consideration; leave is granted to reappraise the entire evidence with a view to secure ends of justice. Send for the respondent through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.200,000/-, returnable to the Assistant Registrar of this Court at Peshawar. Station House Officer shall execute the warrants within a fortnight. MWA/N-8/SC Leave granted.