2017 PLP 201 (SCMR)
KHALID MEHMOOD — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 201 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Dost Muhammad Khan and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ |
| Parties | KHALID MEHMOOD — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 201 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 201 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Dost Muhammad Khan and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 201 (SCMR) (KHALID MEHMOOD — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Mir Afzal Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 03.05.2010 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Criminal Appeal No.229 of 2005/BWP and Murder Reference No.35 of 2005)
Ss. 306, 307 & 308
Qatl-i-amd
Provisions of Ss. 306, 307 & 308, P.P.C. were relevant only to a case of 'Qisas' and not to that of Ta'zir. Zahid Rehman v. The State PLD 2015 SC 77 ref.
Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), 337-D, 337-F(i) & 337-F(iii)
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, jaifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah
Death sentence, confirmation of
Brutal and merciless nature of murder
Due to strained relations with his wife and her shifting to her brother's house the accused not only killed his wife and her brother but had also injured three other persons
For committing murder the accused not only used a pistol but also a screw-driver with the use of which he had tried to take out the eyes of some of his victims
Record made it abundantly clear that the accused had acted in the matter brutally and mercilessly and that he was a desperate person evoking no sympathy in the matter of his death sentence
Appeal was dismissed accordingly and death sentence awarded to accused was upheld. Mir Afzal Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Ch. Muhammad Waheed, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
Khalid Mehmood appellant had been booked and tried in case FIR No. 272 registered at Police Station City C-Division, Rahim Yar Khan on 06.11.2001 for offences under sections 302 and 324, P.P.C. and after a full-dressed trial he was convicted by the trial court for offences under sections 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 337-A(i), 337-D, 337-F(iii), 337-F(i) and 337-A(i), P.P.C. and on the charge of murder he was sentenced to death and to pay compensation. All the convictions and sentences of the appellant were subsequently upheld by the High Court and his sentence of death was confirmed by it. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 31.03.2011.
2. Leave to appeal had been granted in this case in order to examine as to whether the case against the appellant attracted the provisions of sections 306, 307 and 308, P.P.C. or not and also to consider as to whether any mitigating circumstance was available on the record or not for reduction of the appellant's sentence of death to imprisonment for life on the charge of murder.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have straightaway observed that the law has been settled by this Court through an authoritative judgment rendered in the case of Zahid Rehman v. The State (PLD 2015 SC 77) and it has been clarified that the provisions of sections 306, 307 and 308, P.P.C. are relevant only to a case of Qisas and not to that of Ta'zir. The case in hand was surely a case of Ta'zir and not that of Qisas. As regards the question regarding mitigation of the appellant's sentence we have noticed that in the backdrop of strained relations with his wife and her shifting to her brother's house the appellant had not only killed his wife and brother but had also injured three others. For committing the said offences the appellant had not only used a pistol but also a screw-driver with the use of which he had tried to take out the eyes of some of his victims. The record makes it abundantly clear that the appellant had acted in the matter brutally and mercilessly and that he is a desperate person evoking no sympathy in the matter of his sentence. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed and all the convictions and sentences of the appellant recorded and upheld by the courts below are maintained. MWA/K-10/SC Appeal dismisse