2021 PLP 1783 (SCMR)
MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Prosecutor General Sindh — Respondent
| Citation | 2021 PLP 1783 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Prosecutor General Sindh — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1783 (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 1783 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah 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 1783 (SCMR) (MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Prosecutor General Sindh — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Wali Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Rasool Mangi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 16.06.2021 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad in Cr. A. No.D-250 of 2011 with Confirmation Case No.D-14 of 2011)
S. 302(b)
Qatl-i-amd
Petition seeking enhancement of sentence from life imprisonment to death sentence, dismissal of
Imprisonment for life already served out by the convict
Effect
Accused was convicted under S. 302(b), P.P.C. by the Trial Court and sentenced to death
High Court altered the sentence into imprisonment for life
Plea of complainant that given the brutality inflicted upon the deceased, reflected by as many as eight entry wounds with corresponding exits, there was no occasion for the High Court to alter penalty of death into imprisonment for life
As per report submitted by the Superintendent Jail, accused had since been released after serving out his sentence, reckoned in prison role as 16-years 5-months 1-day, remissions included
After dismissal of his appeal before the High Court albeit with reduction in sentence, accused had contently retired to his fate Imprisonment for life was a legal sentence and has already been served out by the accused, and, thus, enormity of his crime notwithstanding, he could not be recalled so as to be dispatched to the gallows for the offence for which he had endured imprisonment for life
Petition for leave to appeal seeking enhancement of sentence of accused was dismissed. Hussain Bux Baloch, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Petitioner is complainant in a case of homicide, reported vide FIR No.26 dated 29.5.1997 at Police Station Bhitainagar District Hyderabad; it was alleged that on the fateful day, Abdul Rahim accused shot dead Dr. Tanvir Hafeez, no other than his sister-in-law, in the backdrop of some domestic dispute; sent to trial, the accused was returned a guilty verdict; convicted under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, he was sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge Hyderabad vide judgment dated 15.8.2011, altered into imprisonment for life by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh vide impugned judgment dated 16.6.2021, being assailed on the grounds that given the brutality inflicted upon the deceased, awfully reflected by as many as eight entry wounds with corresponding exits, there was no occasion for the High Court to alter penalty of death into imprisonment for life. The bottom line is that the wage settled by the learned trial Judge being most conscionable in circumstances did not warrant reduction and, thus, interference by this Court is most called for.
2. Heard.
3. Be that as it may, the respondent who has not even been arrayed as a party in this petition, as per report submitted by the Superintendent Jail, has since been released on 1.7.2021 after serving out his sentence, reckoned in prison role as 16-years 5-months 1-day, remissions inclusive; it appears that after dismissal of his appeal albeit with reduction in sentence, he had contently retired to his fate. Imprisonment for life is a legal sentence and has already been served out by the petitioner and, thus, enormity of his crime notwithstanding, he cannot be recalled so as to be dispatched to the gallows for the offence he has endured imprisonment for life; there being one life, he cannot be vexed twice. Petition fails. Leave declined. MWA/M-56/SC Petition dismissed.