2011 SCMR 1037 (PLP)
RASHID ALI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 1037 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Nasir-ul-Mulk and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | RASHID ALI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 1037 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 1037 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Nasir-ul-Mulk and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 1037 (PLP) (RASHID ALI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 27th October, 2009.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi dated 3-10-2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2007 and C.C. No. 3 of 2007).
S. 302(b)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted to accused by Supreme Court to consider only the quantum of punishment deserved by him.
S. 302(b)
Accused, a Naik in the Rangers had killed a co-employee of the Rangers by firing with his official rifle
Reason for the murder had been explained by the accused himself in his judicial confession
Conduct and act of accused, who belonged to a disciplined force and was entrusted with an official assault rifle meant for the purpose of the State, in showing such a reckless and callous disregard for a colleague and that also not on an immediate reaction to the allegedly false complaint but after almost 45 minutes of the making of the said complainant when he had time to cool down, was not a type of conduct which could invoke sympathy or leniency for him
Sentence of death as confirmed by High Court was maintained and the appeal was dismissed accordingly. M. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Additional P.-G. Sindh for the State.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
In the occurrence in question, one Rashid, a Naik in the Rangers, had tired at a co-employee of the Rangers, namely, Inayat, Naik with his official G-3 rifle killing him at the spot. The occurrence had been witnessed by the complainant Hawaldar Ameer Haider (P.W.1), Naik Asghar Ali (P.W.2) and Lance Naik Noor Muhammad (P.W.3). On the strength of the testimony offered by the natural and independent witnesses and also on account of the judicial confession made by him that he was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. and was punished with death which sentence was then confirmed by the High Court. Leave to appeal had been granted to consider only the quantum of punishment deserved by the said appellant.
2. The eye-witnesses could not throw any light on the reason which had led Rashid appellant to shoot at Inayat deceased. However, it was the said appellant himself, through his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., who had given the said reason leading to the said murder. The appellant had explained that Inayat deceased had made a false B complaint against him to Ameer Haider Hawaldar (P.W.1) saying that the appellant was refusing to carry the breakfast for the other soldiers in defiance of the instructions of Inayat deceased. The appellant added that after this false complaint had been made by Inayat deceased, he and the said deceased continued serving breakfast to the other members of the staff and it was at about 6-45 a.m. when they were returning to the barrack that the appellant lost his head and felt annoyed with Inayat deceased, who had levelled false allegations against him; that the appellant saw the said deceased coming from the other side which further enraged him whereupon he picked up his official G-3 rifle and fired shots at the said deceased.
3. The conduct and act of the appellant, who belonged to a disciplined force and was entrusted with an official assault rifle meant for the purposes of the State, in showing such a recklessness and callous and disregard for a colleague and that also not on an immediate reaction to the allegedly false complaint but after almost 45 minutes of the making of the said allegedly false complaint when he had time to cool down, is not a type of conduct which could invoke sympathy or leniency for him. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the imposition of the said sentence of death as confirmed by the High Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. N.H.Q./R-11/SC Appeal dismissed.