1970 PLP 113 (SCMR)
SARFARAZ-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1970 PLP 113 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SARFARAZ-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 113 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 113 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 113 (SCMR) (SARFARAZ-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zahoor-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 15th November 1969.
- Zahoor‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Attorney for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 11th February 1969, in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1968/Murder Reference No. 80 of 1968). Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Murder-Sentence-Mitigation-Motive even if non-existing-Not a mitigating circumstance for showing leniency in matter of awarding sentence. A murder which may apparently appear to be motiveless may not be without a motive as it is not easy to discover the same which may be lying hidden in the mind of the murderer. But, even if a murder is committed without a motive, it does not get invested with any virtue to merit a leniency in the sentence. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑Petitioner Sarfaraz has been found guilty of the murder of Taj Muhammad, deceased, and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar. His conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench. The murder took place at noon time on the 9th of August 1967, According to the prosecution case, the deceased was at the time lying on a cot in the shop of P. W. Ali Muhammad, black smith, where the other P. Ws., namely, Saaduddin, Nur Akbar and Muhammad Yousuf, were also present listening to a Transistor Radio. The petitioner came there armed with a tamancha and fired a shot at the deceased, injuring him fatally on the head and then fled away. The occurrence was reported at the Police Station Tangi by P. W. Muhammad, father of the deceased, at 2 p.m. wherein he charged the petitioner for the murder, but stated that there was no enmity between him and the deceased prior to the occurrence. However, at the trial, Muhammad, aforesaid, and P. W. Mahmood, disclosed that a month before the occurrence there was a dispute between the petitioner and the deceased who‑owned lands adjacent to each other, on the turn of the irrigation water. The High Court has disbelieved this allega tion of motive as it was put in at a belated stage and, was contrary to the F. I. R., where it was clearly said that no enmity existed between the parties. Nonetheless, the learned Judges of the High Court have confirmed the death sentence awarded to the petitioner as absence of motive is not a mitigating circumstance. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not questioned the petitioner's conviction, but has pleaded for the lesser sentence, laying stress on the absence of motive as found by the High Court. It cannot be said that motive` was non‑existing in this case, the finding of title High Court being that because of its late presentment in the prosecution case, it was not satisfactorily proved: However, a murder which may apparently appear to be motiveless may not be without a motive as it is not easy to discover the same which may be lying hidden in the mind of the murderer. But, even if murder is committed without a motive, it does not get invested with any virtue to merit a leniency in the sentence. The present case is one of wanton and heartless murder for which the petitioner has been rightly sentenced to death. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.