2010 SCMR 1590 (PLP)
ALEEQ SHAH — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 SCMR 1590 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Shakirullah Jan, Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | ALEEQ SHAH — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 SCMR 1590 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (c) 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 2010 SCMR 1590 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Shakirullah Jan, Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 SCMR 1590 (PLP) (ALEEQ SHAH — 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.
- Sadaqat Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 1-12-2008 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal No.200-J of 2002 in Murder Reference No.268 of 2002).
S. 302(b)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Qatl-e -amd
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider as to whether the old age of accused could be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the conversion of his death sentence to a lesser sentence.
S. 302(b)
Accused was 59/60 years of age at the time of commission of offence
Nothing was available on record about the infirmity or serious sickness of the accused which along with his age could be taken as a mitigating circumstance so as to commute his sentence of death to a lesser punishment
Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Muhammad Ibrahim v. The State 1974 PCr.LJ 275 and Muhammad Aslam Shah v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 704 distinguished. Muhammad Sher alias Malang v. The State PLD 2001 SC 90 and Amir Gul v. The State 1981 SCMR 182 ref.
S. 302(b)
Age of accused "by itself" cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance for reduction of his sentence. Muhammad Sher alias Malang v. The State PLD 2001 SC 90 and Amir Gul v. The State 1981 SCMR 182 ref. Syed Ali Imran Shah, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State. Sadaqat Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The appellant has been convicted in a criminal case, emerging out of F.I.R. No.215 dated 2-7-2001, registered with Police Station Hazro, Attock, reporting about the occurrence, which took place the same day at about 7-00 p.m. in which Muzaffar Khan and Adil Khan are said to have been done to death by the appellant. The appellant was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death on two counts with compensation of Rs.50,000, to be paid to each legal heirs of the deceased or in default to undergo two years simple imprisonment, by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 12-4-2002. His appeal before the High Court failed on 1-12-2008. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 22-5-2009 to consider, if the old age of the petitioner can be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the conversion of his sentence from death to a lesser.
2. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant, while relying upon the judgments reported as Muhammad Ibrahim v. The State (1979 PCr.LJ 275) and Muhammad Aslam Shah v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 704 has argued that in both the cases, the old age of convict has been so considered and the sentence reduced. However, this Court in judgments reported as Muhammad Sher alias Malang v. The State (PLD 2001 SC 90) and Amir Gul v. The State (1981 SCMR 182) has categorically held that, the age 'by itself' cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of the sentence. In judgments Muhammad Ibrahim and Muhammad Aslam (supra), cited by learned counsel for the appellant, the convict was suffering from tuberculosis, was sick and infirm person, whereas in judgments Muhammad Sher and Amir Gul (supra), at the time of commission of offence, the convict was of advance age, but this is not so in the present matter, as at the time when the offence was committed, the petitioner was around 59/ 60 years and there is no material about the infirmity or serious sickness of the appellant in which age along thereto can be taken as a mitigating circumstance so as to bring the case within the purview of the judgments cited by the appellant's counsel.
3. Resultantly, we do not find any merits in this appeal, which is hereby, dismissed. N. N.H. Q. /A-100/SC Appeal dismissed.