2006 PLP 685 (MLD)
KHALIL AHMED — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 685 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHALIL AHMED — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 685 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 685 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 685 (MLD) (KHALIL AHMED — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 302(a)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.. 243
Awarding.death sentence on basis of plea of guilt alone
Capital punishment was awarded to accused solely for the reason that he had admitted his guilt, without requiring accused to show-cause as to why he should not be convicted
Conviction of accused thus was against provisions of S.243, Cr.P.C.
Trial Court had acted in hot haste and proceeded to record judgment warranting death penalty in a cursory, careless, rather in an over zealous manner
Such disgusting attitude and conduct demonstrated by a Senior Judicial Officer, could hardly be approved
Impugned judgment was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for de novo trial with the direction that Trial Court would frame a fresh charge against accused and proceed with the case strictly in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.
Appellant was convicted by (Mr. Khan Parvez Chang), Sessions Judge, Sanghar vide judgment dated 30-7-2004 in Sessions Case No.97 of 2004, arising out of Crime No.76 of 2004 registered at Police Station, Sanghar. The appellant was convicted under section 302(a), P.P.C. He was awarded death sentence only on the basis of his plea of guilt. Apparently the appellant was not given show-cause notice as to why he was pleading guilty. Learned A.A.-G. after going through the judgment reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 1884 arising out of the same point, has candidly conceded that the judgment was against settled principle of law, thus it was not sustainable and liable to be set aside. We have perused the impugned judgment and minutely examined the R and Ps of the case. Capital punishment was awarded to the appellant solely for the reason that the appellant has admitted his guilt without requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be convicted. Evidently the conviction handed down to the appellant militates against the provisions of section 243, Cr.P.C. Regrettably, the trial Judge acted in hot haste, and proceeded to record judgment warranting death penalty in a cursory, careless, rather over zealous manner. Such disgusting attitude and conduct demonstrated by a Senior Judicial Officer could hardly be approved. In the similar circumstances, judgment awarding death penalty was set aside and murder reference was rejected in the judgment delivered in the case of Muhammad Shafquat v. The State reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 1884 authored by one of us (Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J). Following the rule laid down in the above case, impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for de novo trial. The trial Court shall frame a fresh charge against the appellant and proceed with the case strictly in accordance with law. For the above reasons, the murder reference is not confirmed. The appellant has been produced in custody and is remanded. He shall be produced before the trial Court as and when so ordered. H.B.T./K-9/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.