Mitigating circumstances

Convict-appellant claimed that the recovered contraband was initially wrapped in white cloth weighing 60 grams, whereas the Forensic Science Laboratory Report indicated that the parcel received by the laboratory was wrapped in a khaki envelope and packed in a polythene bag

While this inconsistency, in isolation, did not suffice to dismantle the entire prosecution case, it raised a point that must be considered in the context of sentencing

Discrepancy, though minor, could be seen as a mitigating factor, as it might have indicated a lapse in strictly adhering to the prescribed protocols

Trial Court and the High Court, while both affirming the conviction, did not appear to have fully addressed this factor in their judgments, despite its potential relevance to the sentence

Given the minor nature of the discrepancy and the otherwise unbroken chain of custody, it would have been prudent to award the convict-appellant the benefit of this mitigating factor, potentially leading to a reduction in the sentence imposed

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the sentence was reduced to 05 years imprisonment

With said modification in sentence, the appeal was partially accepted.

Record showed that the Trial Court, as well as the High Court, rightly convicted the convict-appellant, however, after taking into account the mitigating factor present in this case, particularly the minor discrepancy in the packaging of the contraband, it was just and appropriate to modify the sentence

Accordingly, the judgments of both the Courts below were modified and the convict-appellant was hereby sentenced to 05 years of simple imprisonment

With said modification in the sentence, appeal was partially accepted.

Forensic Science LaboratoryReport regarding the .30-bore pistol and crime empties could not be relied upon as the empties and weapon were transmitted together, which was an omission that rendered such forensic evidence inconsequential

High Court, treating the non-proof of motive and recovery inconsequential as mitigating circumstances, converted the sentence of death of the appellant into imprisonment for life

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to some peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, the case of the appellant-convict squarely fell within the ambit of Exception 4 to the erstwhile Section 300, P.P.C.

For the said reasons, life imprisonment was reduced to twenty years imprisonment

Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was young in the year 1991 when the occurrence had taken place; he was accompanying his father and the motive was attributed to his father and not to him

Accused was convicted and sentenced to death on five counts

Validity

It could not be ruled out that accused might have acted under the influence of his elders, particularly his father

Accused did not have any criminal record prior to the occurrence and, therefore, he was a first time offender

Recovery of fire arm weapon was not free from doubt and evidence brought on record in such regard was not safe to be relied upon

In addition to such recognized mitigating factors, accused had served full term prescribed for alternate punishment of imprisonment for life without benefit of remissions

Supreme Court on account of such mitigating and extenuating circumstances, converted sentence of death on five counts to imprisonment for life on five counts

Supreme Court also extended benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C., in favour of accused

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

On assessment of evidence, it was found that the motive had not been alleged by the complainant against the appellant in the FIR and for that the complainant in his statement recorded before the Court stated that the said occurrence took place at the spur of the moment due to altercation

Moreover, it was not determinable in the case as to what was the real cause of the occurrence and as to what had actually happened immediately before the occurrence, which had resulted in the death of deceased, therefore, the death sentence awarded to the appellant was quite harsh

As such, while maintaining the conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C., the sentence of death awarded to the appellant was altered to imprisonment for life

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

In the present case, the motive, had not been proved, making the case of appellant one of mitigating circumstances, warranting lesser punishment

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant, but due to peculiar circumstances of the present case, the sentence awarded to him was reduced from 14 years to that of 07 years

With said modification in sentence, appeal was dismissed, accordingly.

Record showed that there was an ordinate delay of one hour in reporting the matter to the local police despite the fact that as per version of the prosecution the complainant was informed well within time by the eye-witness, through his mobile phone from the alleged occurrence of the murder of the deceased, therefore, he was under statutory obligation to inform the local police with utmost promptitude, however, as per available record, the prosecution could not furnish any plausible explanation qua the delay of one hour in reporting the matter to the local police

It was evident from the bare perusal of the record that the most important and relevant eye-witness of the occurrence was not examined by the prosecution, therefore, an inference could be drawn within the meaning of Art.129(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that had he been produced he would have not supported the case of prosecution

In the present case, the testimony of female witness was of no legal worth for the prosecution qua the guilt of the accused/appellant, as her name had neither been mentioned in the 'Murasila' followed by the FIR nor she had been cited as an eye-witness of the occurrence in the site plan

There was also in field the delayed statement of the said female witness, whose testimony could be of paramount importance to the case of prosecution as she was nobody else but the real wife of the accused/appellant and aunt of the deceased

Other than this, the prosecution had not been able to bring on record motive that why the accused/appellant was all-out to kill the deceased and that too inside the premises of his house rather the motive as set-up by the prosecution in the form of verbal altercation prima facie suggested that the occurrence might have taken place at the spur of the moment, therefore, prima facie, it seemed that the accused/appellant was having no premeditation or intention to kill the deceased

Such minor weaknesses might be considered for reduction of the sentence

Similarly, in eventuality when an accused person committed an offence without any premeditation or planning and in the heat of a free-fight struck the deceased with a single blow the case of accused would come within clause (c) of S.302, P.P.C

Conviction of accused recorded under S.302(b), P.P.C, was altered to one under S.302(c), P.P.C

Consequently, sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused was reduced to ten years imprisonment

With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was partially allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that there were some mitigating circumstances which called for reduction in the quantum of sentence of appellant

Prosecution had failed to prove the recovery and motive part of its case against the appellant, therefore, alternate sentence of imprisonment for life to appellant for the murder of the deceased, which was also a legal sentence, would meet the ends of justice

Hence, the conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C., awarded to appellant by the Trial Court was maintained, however, his sentence was altered from death to imprisonment for life

With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstance.

Explosive substance was alleged to have been recovered from accused which were to be used in the commission of targeting the government installations and destabilization of peace in the country

Record showed that the appellants had served sufficient sentence

Appellants were first time offenders and poor persons and hardly earned bread for their family

Appellants remained in jail for a considerable period, therefore, under the present scenario of the case, the appellants had sufficiently been punished

Under those circumstances, appellants needed to be given a chance in their life to rehabilitate

Appellants had already undergone a substantial period of incarceration

Considering the mitigating circumstances and the absence of any aggravating factors warranting enhanced punishment, a lenient view was to be taken

Consequently, the sentences awarded for the remaining offences were reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants

Appeal was disposed of.

Wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, unnatural offence, kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to unnatural lust

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, quantum of

Mitigating circumstances

Accused were charged for committing unnatural offence with the complainant after abducting him

Statement from the Investigating Officer, asserting that abduction was not proven, particularly in a case where the victim had provided a detailed and coherent account of being forcibly taken by the convicts to the location of the incident, followed by the commission of sodomy by one of them, raised concerns about the adequacy and diligence of the investigation

Such ambiguity in the Investigating Officer's statement did not negate the victim's testimony, which was pivotal and corroborated by other evidence on record

Entire trial could not be nullified or vitiated merely on the basis of a single contradictory or ambiguous statement made by one of the prosecution witnesses, including the Investigating Officer

Accused were entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt that arose from inconsistencies in witness statements or evidence

Law recognized that lapses or discrepancies in the investigation process may occurr, but such deficiencies should not lead to a wholesale rejection of otherwise compelling evidence

Such shortcomings, if any, may be appropriately considered in the context of mitigating the sentences awarded to the convicts

One matter of concern that required attention was the inadvertence on the part of the Medical Officer in failing to explicitly use the term "penetration" or "canal intercourse," which were essential elements for establishing an offence under S.377 A.P.C

Appellants argued that the absence of the term "penetration," undermined the claim that an offence under S.377 A.P.C was committed, however, Medical Officer's report, and physical evidence, such as external sphincter and presence of bruises, strongly suggested that penetration or carnal intercourse did occur

While the lack of precise medical terminology was relevant it did not overshadow the broader facts and context of the case

Failure to use specific terminology did not negate the reality of the crime

Nonetheless, such lapse had provided the appellant an opportunity to seek mitigation of offence committed

Thus, the conviction of accused "AD" and "AB" was upheld, however, their punishment was reduced to the sentence they had already undergone

Conviction of accused "NB" was upheld, however the sentences of life imprisonment imposed under S.12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985, was reduced to imprisonment of ten years

Under S.377, A.P.C, life imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment for ten years

Appeal was partly accepted with modification in sentence.

Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they committed murder of the brother-in-law of complainant by firing during robbery

Record showed that both the Courts below, upon proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, had rightly concluded that the petitioners were guilty of the offences charged and no exception could be taken to their findings

However, insofar as the death sentence awarded to petitioner "TU" was concerned, it was noted that there were certain inconsistencies appearing in the prosecution's case creating doubts which though were not sufficient for acquittal, however, might be considered as extenuating/mitigating circumstance in the matter of sentence

Accordingly, the instant petition to the extent of petitioner "TU" was converted into an appeal and was partly allowed in the terms that his conviction under Section 302(b), P.P.C., was maintained, however, the sentence of death awarded to him was commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life

As regards conviction and sentence of petitioner "SK", no ground was found for interference in the impugned judgment

Petition to the extent of petitioner "SK" was therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Accused and three co-accused persons were convicted by Trial Court for committing Qatl-i-amd of wife of accused and were sentenced to imprisonment for life

High Court acquitted three co-accused persons while sentence of accused was enhanced to death

Validity

Factum of motive was not proved by prosecution by bringing on record reliable and confidence inspiring evidence

All mitigating factors justified not handing down the sentence of death

Trial Court mentioned mitigating factors which had led to awarding sentence of life imprisonment

High Court had erroneously assumed that Trial Court did not record reasons

High Court enhanced sentence because, in its opinion, a harsher sentence should have been awarded

Supreme Court maintained conviction of accused as the prosecution had proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt but sentence of death was reduced to imprisonment for life as awarded by Trial Court

Appeal was partly allowed.

Similarly, it was also not explained that how many bullets were fired by each of the three accused and how many of them had hit the deceased

Admittedly, no empty was recovered from the place of the occurrence, therefore, in the given circumstances, it could not be said with certainty that out of all the four assailants, whose fire shots resulted into fatal injury(s), causing death of the deceased

Occurrence had taken place all of a sudden without there being any proof of premeditation

It was a free fight, without proof of the motive alleged in the FIR

One of the co-accused, had already been acquitted by the Trial Court on the same set of evidence

Appellant remained in prison since May 2006 and was incarcerated in death cell w.e.f. 2013 till date, almost for more than eleven years

Section 302(b), P.P.C. provides a punishment for death or imprisonment for life

Total period of detention of the appellant in prison was about 18 years, without earning a single day of remission, because of being awarded death sentence

If remissions were counted towards his sentence, the appellant had served a period of almost an imprisonment for life

Delay in conclusion of judicial proceedings was on account of the system in vogue and for no fault of the appellant

After serving a sentence for life, including eleven years detention in death cell, executing his death penalty at present stage would not only be harsh, but would also be contrary to the principle of life expectancy

Under such circumstances, the appellant could not be sentenced twice for one and the same offence, hence punishment for death awarded to the appellant could not sustain

Appeal was dismissed; conviction awarded to the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. was maintained, however, the sentence of death awarded to him was altered to that of imprisonment for life]

[Per Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. [Minority view]: Considering the distance between police station and place of occurrence it could safely be concluded that there was no delay in the registration of the FIR

Primary eye-witness was a resident of the same locality, and was a natural eye-witness to the occurrence, as he lived in close proximity to the place of incident

Ocular account furnished by the eye-witness stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence

Incident in the present case could not be characterized as a free fight or unpremeditated murder because firstly deceased was shot to death by the appellant, then his dead body was thrown in a nala

Moreover, when the FIR in the present case was registered by the complainant, the appellant not only murdered the complainant in a brutal and gruesome manner but also assassinated his son

Appellant was a habitual criminal/murderer, who had no regard for human life

Case of acquitted co-accused was fundamentally distinct from that of the appellant, therefore, his acquittal held no bearing on the appellant's case

Because of the brutality and dangerousness of the appellant's actions, it was necessary to impose a strict punishment on him i.e. capital punishment in order to deliver justice and protect society

Mitigating the punishment based on the long trial or the time the appellant spent in custody did not change the severity of the crime

Appeal was dismissed and death penalty imposed by the High Court was maintained]

Accused was charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which one brother of the complainant died whereas other sustained firearm injuries

Admittedly, the prosecution had not alleged the motive, which made death of the deceased mysterious, inferring that the prosecution witnesses had deliberately suppressed the motive

Thus, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the accused was sufficient enough to serve the purpose

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved the charge against the accused

Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, quantum of

Mitigating circumstances

Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased and causing injuries to two persons of complainant party

Both the parties had put their versions

Though the prosecution witnesses substantiated the case of prosecution with regard to murder of the decease by the appellant No.l and making murderous assault upon the injured witnesses by the appellant No.2, but none of the parties came with whole truth and both of them had moulded the episode of occurrence according to their convenience and real cause of the occurrence remained suppressed by the respective parties

From the evidence of the prosecution, corroborated by the circumstantial evidence available in the case, it seemed more likely that the complainant party proceeded towards the disputed place and restrained the appellant No.1 from raising construction on the disputed place, which resulted in firing from both the sides, thus, the case of the appellant No. 1 was covered under S. 302(c), P.P.C., instead of S. 302(b), P.P.C.

In such circumstances, appeal was partly allowed and the conviction of appellant No.1 was converted from Section 302(b) to one under S. 302(c), P.P.C., and his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to 15 years R.I.

Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant No.2 was maintained and to his extent appeal was dismissed.

Motive set up by the prosecution was quite vague as such the motive for the occurrence was not established from the record

Question of what happened immediately prior to the incident, or what prompted the appellant to take away the life of his father and mother were the mitigating circumstances

Moreover, it was not determinable in the case as to what was the real cause of occurrence and as to what had actually happened immediately before the occurrence, which had resulted in the death of both the deceased, therefore, the death sentence awarded to the appellant was quite harsh

Thus, the conviction was maintained, but the sentence of death awarded to the appellant under S. 302(b), P.P.C was altered to imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Record showed some mitigating circumstances, firstly the FIR was lodged with a delay of eight days and secondly there was sole testimony of the victim whose age at the time of testifying was 8/9 years

Question of quantum of the sentence required utmost attention and thoughtfulness on the part of the Court

Thus, based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case whilst exercising judicial discretion, High Court converted the death penalty into imprisonment for life

With the said modification in the sentence of appellant, the appeal was dismissed.

Appellant was the son-in-law of the deceased and he had married his daughter, and out of the wedlock, they had four children

On the day of the unfortunate incident, the appellant allegedly came to the house of the deceased and on refusal by his father-in-law/deceased to allow the appellant to take his wife and the children with him, he took out a pistol and made firing upon him and mother-in-law due to which his father-in-law and his mother-in-law received bullet injuries

However, the prosecution had failed to establish that there was any previous domestic issue between the appellant and his wife, and in that regard, the prosecution failed to produce the wife of the appellant before the Court as a witness

Moreover, it was observed that the motive set up by the prosecution was quite vague; as such, the motive for the occurrence was not established from the record

These were the mitigating circumstances

Moreover, it was not determinable in the case as to what was the real cause of occurrence and as to what had actually happened immediately before the occurrence, which had resulted in the death of complainant (then injured) and injuries to the injured

If a specific motive is alleged by the prosecution, then it is the duty of the prosecution to establish the said motive through cogent and confidence-inspiring evidence, and not proving of motive may be considered a mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused

Considering the quantum of the sentence, the co-accused who, too, had been nominated in the FIR stood acquitted, and the reasoning behind such acquittal had been found to be convincing; this factor also created mitigation

As such, while maintaining the conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C., the sentence of death awarded to the appellant was altered to imprisonment for life

Since the charges under S.324, P.P.C, had been fully proved, therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded for the same by the Trial Court was upheld

Appeal was dismissed with the said modification in the sentence of the appellant.

Record showed that accused was 13 years old and a first time offender, having no previous criminal record, therefore, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of the accused was reduced from life imprisonment to five (05) years

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Accused was charged for committing murder of his spouse and two daughters and also made an attempt to take the life of his third daughter

Solitary statement of injured witness was confidence inspiring and truthful, which was sufficient enough to conclude that appellant had committed murder of deceased persons and caused injuries to said witness

Admittedly, there was no question of any misidentity or any reason of false implication by injured witness

However, question arose that as to whether the incident occurred abruptly without premeditation due to rage or the occurrence took place accidentally without any intention to commit murder of the deceased persons

Critical analysis of the testimony of injured witness showed no premeditation on the part of the appellant to commit murder of his wife and children

Circumstances of the instant case pointed towards the fact that due to altercation between the appellant's first and second wife the instant occurrence took place at the spur of the moment without any previous motive or premeditation, making case of the appellant one of mitigating circumstances

Thus, the sentence of capital punishment awarded to the appellant was converted into life imprisonment

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances, with said modification in sentence.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two other sustained firearm injuries

In view of the ocular account and confessional statement, it could not be ascertained whether the accused or the proclaimed offender caused the fatal injury to the deceased as both of the them made indiscriminate firing, thus when the seat of injury was not known, the case of the accused would squarely fall within the purview of mitigating circumstances, warranting lesser punishment

Thus, sentence awarded under S.302 (b) of P.P.C was altered and modified by reducing the sentence of capital punishment to that of life imprisonment

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence, inc circumstances.

P.W. 4 during his examination-in-chief stated that appellant did not receive even a penny and during his cross-examination he denied his signature on the complaint and disowned its contents

P.W.5 during his cross-examination stated that he had not personally paid any illegal gratification to the appellant and could not identify the official, who allegedly demanded the illegal gratification

Charge of receiving illegal gratification had not been proved against the appellant, however, allegations of corruption and ill-repute remained on record

Owing to mitigating circumstances and analyzing different factors the penalty of removal from service was converted into compulsory retirement

Courts have consistently emphasized the importance of considering the employee's length of service, the nature of the offence and the context surrounding the misconduct

A fair and just approach to disciplinary actions is essential in maintaining morale and ensuring that penalties are proportionate to the offences committed

Penalty of removal from service was not proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the appellant, thus, the same was converted into compulsory retirement

Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances.

It was reflected from the evidence that the appellant was a poor labourer, having 10 children and perhaps no house of his own

In the absence of any specific reason, cruel conduct of appellant might be a matter of personal deposition either in addition to, or over and above his economic hardship

In this age of distressing inflation when even the middle class of our society is fighting hard to earn two-time meals for their children, let alone other necessities such as health and education the head of a large family like the present one remained always in the grip of mental stress to make ends meet

Day of the unfortunate occurrence was the second day of the family having shifted to their one-room house where the house-hold articles were lying scattered

Such a situation was a potential source of disturbance and mental stress

Late arrival of son of appellant and deceased at home on the day of occurrence that led to the happening of the unfortunate occurrence, definitely demonstrated a sudden heat of passion rather than a pre-meditated design of appellant to kill his wife

In such situations, imprisonment for life might serve the ends of justice

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant, however, due to extraneous circumstances, the death sentence was altered to sentence for life imprisonment

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, abetment, criminal conspiracy, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, reduction in

Mitigating circumstances

Convict swayed by emotions

Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and buried the dead body with the help of co-accused

Evidently, appellant "W" was equally related to the house as the deceased was and he was attached to the family more than the deceased

Deceased lost his life because of the suspected illicit relationship with the sister-in-law of the appellant, and the same turned to be the cause of appellant's annoyance and the feelings went so deep which prompted the appellant "W" to kill the deceased

In statement of accused "W", the cause was mentioned as the illicit relationship between his sister-in-law and deceased and appellant "W" while confessing his guilt confirmed the same to be the cause of killing

In such circumstances, appellant "W" was swayed by his emotion and attachment to the family

When this was the state of affairs, the Court lurked no doubt in holding that the approach of the Trial Court to the quantum of sentence was not in accordance with law which called for interference

Appeal was partly allowed, conviction of the appellant "W" was maintained, however, his sentence of death was converted into imprisonment for life

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with modification in sentence, in circumstances.

According to the impugned judgment, the appellant had been found guilty and convicted for recovery of 02-kilograms of heroin and awarded sentence of imprisonment for six years and also convicted for the recovery of 03-kilograms of ICE and awarded sentence of imprisonment for 14-years

Sentence of imprisonment awarded in terms of its duration should always be commensurate to the gravity of offence proven and other attending circumstances like age of the convict, previous history and involvement in crime and chances of reformation etc.

In cases of recovery of narcotics, the quantum of sentence should be dependent upon the nature of the contraband recovered as well as the quantity of the recovery made from the accused person

Appellant was arrested and had been convicted for the offence in hand at quite a young age

As per card of arrest, he was just 22 years of age when he was arrested

Admittedly, appellant had no past criminal record to his discredit

Primary object behind punishment for an offence should be to reform the individual as well, apart from retribution and deterrence

Keeping in view the young age of the appellant coupled with the fact that he had no previous history of his involvement in criminal cases were glaring factors which were sufficient to attract favorable consideration for reducing the quantum of sentence awarded in the instant case

Resultantly, the sentence of 6 years RI awarded to the appellant for offence under S.9(d) of the Act for recovery of 2kg heroin was ordered to be maintained as it was in consonance with the approved sentence policy

Likewise, the sentence of 14-years RI upon conviction of appellant under S.11(c) of the Act was reduced to six years RI

Appeal was partially allowed.

Accused was charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant

Complainant stated that on the day of occurrence, prior to the occurrence, he went along with accused for his medicine and accused was suffering from respiratory disease

Complainant also stated before the Court during his statement that accused asked that whether house was to be sold or not and when brother of the complainant replied that after the marriage of the sisters, property would be distributed, accused brought gun from other room and fired straight shots and committed the occurrence

Such state of affairs reflected that it was not premeditated occurrence rather took place under the heat of passion

When all these factors were taken into consideration in totality then they constituted mitigating factor for reduction in quantum of sentence to the extent of offence under S.302(b), P.P.C

Therefore, sentence of death awarded to appellant by the Trial Court under S.302(b), P.P.C., was converted to imprisonment for life

With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

In the instant case, there was no direct evidence against for appellant and the entire case hinged upon circumstantial evidence, therefore, as a matter of caution, it would be considered as a mitigating circumstance for awarding the appellant lesser punishment

Even otherwise, when a case qualified for awarding of both sentences of imprisonment for life and that of the death, the proper course for the Courts, as a matter of caution, is to give preference to the lesser sentence

Thus, the appeal stood dismissed by maintaining conviction for offence under S.302(b), P.P.C, however sentence of capital punishment was converted into one of imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Qatl-i-amd, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence reduction in

Mitigating circumstances

Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing

In the instant case, there were mitigating circumstances

Recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant remained inconsequential

Motive as set out by prosecution remained un-proved, which alone was sufficient for reduction of quantum of sentence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellate beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the capital punishment was converted into one of imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Record showed that the appellant suffered the rigours of a protracted trial and it had also been observed that it seemed likely that the appellant would have mended his conduct in those years

Counsel for the appellant on appellant's instructions, had earnestly and humbly prayed that the appellant may be given a chance to rehabilitate

Appellant was the sole earner in his family and his incarceration for an extended period would result in cutting off the lifeline available to his family

No proof was available that the appellant was a man of means

As such, the case of the appellant called for a lenient view in the matter of the quantum of sentence awarded to him under S.376(1), P.P.C.

Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under S.376(1), P.P.C., the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the appellant under S.376(1), P.P.C. was reduced to that of rigorous imprisonment of ten years

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr jaifah mutalahimah, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, reduction in single firearm injury

Acquittal of co-accused

Mitigating circumstances

Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing and causing firearm injuries to the witness

As far as the death sentence awarded to appellant was concerned, firstly it was noted that the appellant was although implicated with the role of causing two firearm injuries on the body of deceased but in this backdrop the evidence of Medical Officer was very relevant and he observed only one firearm entry wound on the body of deceased and the second injury was declared to be simple in nature

Infliction of solitary firearm injury was also considered an acknowledged mitigating circumstance warranting conversion of death sentence into imprisonment for life

Secondly, co-accused who was alleged by the prosecution to have inflicted a firearm injury to injured witness had been acquitted by the Trial Court

Said decision was subsequently affirmed by this Court

Even the slightest of circumstance could be enough to convert death sentence of an accused into life imprisonment and no extraordinary circumstances were necessary to effect that change

Thus, the death penalty imposed on appellant under S.302(b), P.P.C., was hereby commuted to imprisonment for life

With said modification in the sentence of the appellant, appeal was dismissed.

According to the Investigating Officer, he did not send the knife to the Forensic Science Agency as it was not blood-stained

Appellant had been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of the deceased

In such an eventuality, the same could be considered a mitigating circumstance

Furthermore, though it was mentioned in the crime report/FIR that appellant started quarreling with husband of complainant and when refrained, he became furious/angry and committed the occurrence yet it had not come on the record that what was the dispute about, therefore, immediate cause of occurrence remained shrouded in mystery

Thus, the appellant's death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Accused was charged for committing murder of his mother by inflicting hatchet blows due to suspicion that she went away for purpose of meeting with someone

In the present case, from the perusal of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, it appeared that not a single witness deposed that the appellant entered his house with the intention to kill her mother nor it appeared from the scenario of the offence, but suddenly he committed the offence, hence in the present case preparation and intention were lacking

Moreover, there was no premeditated intention but incident took place due to flare up of emotions

A single mitigating circumstance available in a particular case would be sufficient to put on guard the Judge not to award the penalty of death but life imprisonment

If a single doubt or ground is available, creating reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court/Judge to award either the death penalty or life imprisonment, it would be a sufficient circumstance to adopt an alternative course

For the said reasons/mitigating circumstances maintaining the death sentence would be unwarranted in the peculiar circumstances of this case and life imprisonment would be the appropriate imprisonment

Therefore, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life

With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was dismissed, accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, robbery, committing robbery or dacoity, at the time of committing dacoity or robbery the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, quantum of

Mitigating circumstances

Single fire shot

Intention to commit dacoity and not murder

Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing while snatching money

Record showed that intention of the appellant was to snatch money from the deceased in his shop and not to commit his murder; when more money was demanded by accused persons, a scuffle started and appellant fired a single shot upon the deceased on his abdomen, and fire was not repeated

Single mitigating circumstance, available in a particular case, would be sufficient to put on guard the judge not to award the penalty of death but life imprisonment

Thus, sentence of death awarded to the appellant was reduced to imprisonment for life

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) [as amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of 2022)], S. 9(1)(3)(a)

Possession of narcotic substance

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, reduction in

Mitigating circumstances

Prosecution case was that 215-grams charas was recovered from the possession of applicant

Applicant (convict) had not disputed the extent and legality of his sentence of simple imprisonment and quantum of fine

In such circumstances, the applicant was barred from challenging his conviction by way of appeal under S.408, Cr.P.C before the Sessions Court and also barred from challenging the same under S.410, Cr.P.C, before the High Court

Applicant could not be allowed approbate and reprobate in same breath as once he had admitted his guilt voluntarily by putting himself at the mercy of Court, subsequently he was precluded to dispute the conviction and he would be bound by his free stance before the Trial Court

Therefore, the applicant had no vested right to challenge the sentence as illegal or improper by filing an appeal in terms of S.408, Cr.P.C and the appeal was overtly barred under S.412, Cr.P.C

However, sentence was reduced to one as already undergone while looking to the mitigating factors that the applicant was first offender and he was the only breadwinner of his family

Revision petition was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Qatl-i-amd, robbery, assault or criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty, dishonestly receiving stolen property, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, quantum of

Mitigating circumstances

Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant during robbery

In the present case, the stolen articles were produced by father of the appellant

Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under S.411, P.P.C could not be maintained as S.411 P.P.C required that a person who retained any stolen property should be charged with the said offence, whereas in this case, the stolen articles were produced by father of the appellant, and no such fact had been proved on record that the said articles were in possession of the appellant

Therefore, conviction and sentence under S.411, P.P.C awarded to the appellant was against the law

Moreover, non-production of one of the relatives of complainant as a witness, who was telephonically informed by the complainant about the alleged occurrence at the first instance, constituted a mitigating circumstance

On the other hand, the requirement of S.392, P.P.C. had to be seen in the light of the statement recorded by complainant, who was put under fear of instant death and she was also injured and wrongly detained, therefore, all the ingredients of robbery mentioned in S.392 P.P.C were present in the case

Hence, sentence of three years imprisonment awarded to the appellant under S.392 P.P.C was on the lesser side, therefore the same was enhanced to 10 years

Sentence of life imprisonment under S.302(b), P.P.C was maintained

Criminal appeal was partly allowed.

Accused-appellants were charged for making firing upon complainant party, due to which one person died while another sustained firearm injury

Record showed that eye-witness of the occurrences, an independent witness, though did not deny that deceased received injury due to fire of accused "BJ" but deposed that he did not see accused "BJ" firing at deceased

Bedrock precept of criminal justice was that when the eye-witnesses took two different versions, the one favourable to the accused had to be followed

Statements of other prosecution witnesses were also not of high prestige so as to make the same basis for award of extreme penalty of Qisas

Furthermore, the bullet recovered from the body of deceased was not sent for chemical examination

Witnesses produced by the prosecution were close relatives of complainant and the only independent witness had not fully supported the prosecution version thus the accused was liable to be awarded lesser punishment

Death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Record showed that initially eight persons were accused of aiding and abetting the principal accused but were later on exonerated under S.169, Cr.P.C, which raised significant considerations

Exoneration of those co-accused individuals did not directly exonerate the principal accused, but it did highlight a potential mitigating factor for considering lesser punishment

In that context, if those co-accused individuals were initially implicated by the prosecution for aiding/abetting the principal accused, yet no evidence was presented implicating them at the scene of the crime or in any criminal activity associated with the murder, which suggested a possibility of their false implication

Said factor aligned with broader concerns about false accusations and the tendency to implicate innocent individuals alongside actual culprits, often for financial gain or other motives

Such circumstances reflected the principle of "sifting the grains from the chaff" in judicial decision-making, where the Court must meticulously evaluate the evidence and avoid imposing a severe penalty, such as death, without clear and convincing proof of guilt

Availability of mitigating factors, such as the questionable involvement of exonerated co-accused and potential motives behind their implication, supported the argument against imposing the death penalty in the present case

Therefore, while the exoneration of the co-accused did not directly absolve the principal accused, it underscored the complexity of the case and the need for cautious judicial consideration

In light of the said mitigating circumstances, imposing a lesser penalty than death, such as life imprisonment, would align with the principles of justice and fairness in criminal sentencing

Appeal was partly accepted, and the death sentence awarded to the accused was altered into life imprisonment.

Allegation levelled against the convict-appellant was that at the time of occurrence he was armed with 30-bore pistol, and he inflicted an injury at the abdomen of the deceased with a fireshot

Perusal of the record showed that although, the convict-appellant was not nominated in the FIR, however, later on, during investigation the police found him involved in the commission of offence and apprehended him

Record also spoke that the alleged pistol was recovered on the pointation of the convict-appellant and the other evidence available on record also connected him with the commission of offence

Nothing was available on record to believe that convict-appellant had falsely been implicated in the case due to any enmity

So, it was not a case of acquittal, however, the record showed that the cause of death of the deceased was the injury inflicted to him by the other convict with a sharp edged weapon

Convict-appellant also played the role in the commission of offence, however, it was a case of circumstantial evidence which was mainly based on last seen evidence and the record spoke that the statements of the last seen witnesses (except complainant) under S.161, Cr.P.C., were recorded after considerable delay

Moreover, the role of the absconding accused persons, had not been determined, and such circumstances could not be ignored lightly

Furthermore, alleged CD was not recovered for the purchase of which the deceased went to the video shop along with the accused persons where the witnesses saw the accused

Similarly, the corroboratory evidence in support of the statements of the witnesses had not been brought on record and the alleged damaged caused to the car of the deceased was also not brought on record

Due to such mitigating circumstances the convict-appellant was sentenced to imprisonment he had already undergone

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

[Per Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J. [Majority view]: It could not be said with certainty that out of all the four assailants, how many shots were fired and whose fire shot had resulted into causing death of the deceased

As far as the recovery of a crime weapon was concerned, it was the case of the prosecution that the appellant fired shots with a rifle, however, there was a divergent version on the record qua the recovery of gun 12 bore and a pistol instead of gun 12 bore and that too had not been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, hence the recovery of crime weapon was inconsequential

Occurrence had taken place all of a sudden without there being any proof of premeditation

It was a free fight, without any motive

All the accused made firing upon the deceased, but it was not established that the appellant alone was responsible for the commission of the murder or the injury caused due to his firing was fatal

Appellant remained in custody w.e.f. May 2006 till date, out of which, he was incarcerated in death cell w.e.f. 2013, almost for more than eleven years, for no fault of his own

Section 302(b), P.P.C. provides a punishment for death or imprisonment for life as Taazir

Appellant had served almost an imprisonment for life, including eleven years detention in death cell

Under such circumstances, executing his death sentence at present stage would be harsh, especially, when there were mitigating circumstances as well

Appeal was dismissed; the conviction awarded to the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. on two counts was maintained, however, the sentence of death awarded to the appellant was altered to that of imprisonment for life on two counts]

[Per Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. [Minority view]: All eye-witnesses were resident of the same area

One of the deceased, was the maternal uncle of both the complainant and an eye-witness, making their presence at the place of occurrence neither unnatural nor improbable

Appellant was named in the FIR with specific role of causing successive firearm injuries on the deceased persons

Ocular account furnished by the eye-witnesses found full corroboration by the medical evidence

Specific injuries attributed to the appellant by the eye-witnesses found corroboration from the post-mortem report

Specific injuries attributed to the appellant were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death

Motive was proved by the witnesses as revealed by their testimonies

Given the evidence and facts of the case, it was impossible, by any stretch of the imagination, to consider the incident as a mere spontaneous fight or an act of unpremeditated murder

Case of acquitted co-accused was fundamentally distinct from that of the appellant, thus, his acquittal held no bearing on the appellant's case

Even if recovery of crime weapon was excluded there was sufficient incriminating material against the appellant in the form of testimony of eye-witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence and motive

Appellant committed murders in a particularly brutal and merciless manner, killing two individuals who were actively pursuing a case against the appellant for a previous murder

Given the gravity of the offence and the appellant's conduct, he was not entitled to any leniency in sentencing

Reducing the punishment based on the long trial or the time the appellant spent in custody did not change the severity of the crime

Appellant was a habitual criminal who committed murder of the innocent persons

Therefore, reducing his sentence would undermine the justice deserved by the victims and the severity of the crime committed

Appeal was dismissed and death penalty imposed by the High Court was maintained]

Record showed that the petitioner (convict) was apprehended having in his possession a substantial quantity (2.1 Kilograms) of material, which on examination by the Ballistic Expert was confirmed to be explosive substance, within the contemplation of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 ('the Act') and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ("ATA")

Eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution, who testified the veracity of the said recovery, were public servants having no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner in a case of such a grave nature entailing punishment of life imprisonment

Coupled with the recovery, the prosecution witnesses were consistent in their statements regarding the safe custody and transmission of the recovered material in sealed sample parcel to the Forensic Science Agency

Trace Chemistry Analysis Report confirmed that the representative sample of the recovered material sent for forensic analysis was dynamite, a high explosive, thereby bringing the case against the petitioner within the mischief of the Act and the ATA

More importantly, the petitioner failed to provide any lawful justification for having explosive substance in his possession; he also could not establish the possibility of his false implication in the case

Prosecution had been able to prove through reliable evidence the recovery of the explosive substance from the direct possession of the petitioner thereby exposing him to the mischief of Section 27A of the ATA - presumption of a 'purpose of terrorism'

Failure of the petitioner to produce any evidence, leave alone of credence, of his lawful justification for the possession of explosive substance, showed that he was unable to rebut the presumption drawn against him - Guilt of the petitioner to have committed the offence of "terrorism" within the contemplation of Section 6(2)(ee) of the ATA had been proved to the hilt

However prosecution had been able to establish only recovery of the explosive substance without any live electric circuit from the direct possession of the petitioner, while he was present at a road junction, and that too, coupled with the fact that the petitioner lacked any prior criminal history

These were mitigating circumstances that warranted a reduced sentence

Therefore, while upholding petitioner's conviction under Section 7(1)(ff) of the ATA, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to reduce his sentence of simple imprisonment for life to simple imprisonment for fourteen years under Section 7(1)(ff) of the ATA

Petition was converted into appeal and partly allowed.

Firing only once from a firearm is a mitigating factor attracting the alternate sentence of imprisonment for life.

Co-convict had abetted the appellant for committing the offence; the vehicle in question was hired/booked by the co-convict and the appellant was picked on the way

Co-convict made search of the driver of the vehicle and snatched money and a cell phone from the driver; he demanded more money from the driver but the driver had no cash

When they tried to snatch the vehicle, the driver stopped the vehicle near a populated area

Due to apprehension of their arrest, the appellant made a fire upon the driver and they both started running towards hills but the people and police chased them and they were apprehended

According to the confessional statement of the appellant recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., he fired (only) once upon the deceased and only one crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence, which was from within the said vehicle, therefore, if he had repeated the fire such empty would also have been found

Moreover in his confessional statement the appellant had stated that co-convict persuaded and abetted the appellant for commission of the offence and had fully participated in the crime with the appellant

Either the confessional statement of appellant was to be accepted in its entirety or discarded, therefore, if it contained something beneficial to the appellant that could not be discarded

Having shared common intention with the appellant, the co-convict was vicariously liable for the offence, however he had been awarded the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. while the appellant had been awarded death sentence

Considering all the above as mitigating circumstances, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C., his sentence of death was reduced to imprisonment for life

Amount of compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and the period to undergo in default thereof was maintained

Conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 392, P.P.C. and section 13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 were also maintained

Appeal was partly allowed.

In the instant case, though the motive of the occurrence was alleged to be the previous enmity due to land dispute as well as matrimonial relations but the prosecution had failed to prove the same

Failure to prove the motive alleged by the prosecution can be considered as a mitigating circumstance for reducing the quantum of sentence awarded to an accused

Petition was converted into an appeal and was partly allowed, and conviction awarded to the petitioner/appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. was maintained, however his sentence of death was converted into imprisonment for life on the basis of the mitigating circumstances.

Appellate Court/High Court had (rightly) disbelieved the recovery of Churri (knife) on the pointation of the petitioner/convict from an open place

Furthermore, absence of motive in the FIR, non-proving of the motive introduced by the prosecution witnesses at the trial about the desire of the petitioner/convict to marry the deceased prior to her marriage with a prosecution witness, and single stab wound on the abdomen of deceased had rightly been considered as mitigating circumstances by the High Court to award lessor sentence of imprisonment for life to the petitioner

Petition was dismissed, leave to appeal was refused, and conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the accused by the High Court was maintained.

In the absence of premeditation to commit murder where motive is not proved by the prosecution, the same may be considered as a mitigating factor in order to reduce the quantum of sentence in cases involving capital punishment.

Single mitigating circumstance, available in a particular case, would be sufficient to put a Judge on guard for not awarding the penalty of death but imprisonment for life.

In the instant case the motive of the occurrence for the appellants (accused and co-accused) was to avenge the murder of their father

In number of cases, such motive has been considered as a mitigating circumstance to reduce death penalty to imprisonment for life

Conviction recorded against accused under sections 302(b) and 34, P.P.C. was maintained, and his sentence which was altered to imprisonment for life by the High Court, was upheld

Whereas in the case of co-accused, while maintaining his conviction under sections 302(b) and 34, P.P.C., his sentence of death on two counts was reduced/converted to imprisonment for life

Appeals were dismissed with such modification in sentence.

No motive was alleged by the prosecution, and the question as to what happened prior to the scene of occurrence that prompted the accused to take away the life of the deceased were mitigating circumstances

In such state of affairs, the conviction of the accused as awarded by the trial Court was maintained, but the sentence of death awarded to the accused, under S. 302(b), P.P.C. was altered to imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Record showed that except disclosures of two accused persons, nothing incriminating had been recovered from other accused in order to substantiate the same, as such, merely on the basis of disclosures of two accused, remaining accused persons could not be convicted and sentenced, thus for the safe administration of justice and to avoid any error of law, Court was unable to maintain impugned judgment to their extent

Penalty of death awarded to two accused persons seemed out of proportion because the standard of evidence required for awarding capital punishment was not available

Although, committing murder of a child aged about 10/11 years in a gruesome and inhuman manner was a gut wrenching incident, but it was also an admitted fact that there was no eye-witness of the occurrence, no last seen evidence, no judicial confession or even extra juridical confession, leading to maintain capital punishment awarded to two accused persons

Thus, in view of such mitigating circumstance, it was a fit case to convert death penalty into life imprisonment, which would serve the cause of justice

Appeal against conviction filed by three accused "MM", "R" and "MB" were allowed

Appeal filed by two accused persons "D" and"I" were partly allowed by maintaining the conviction, however, capital sentence of death was converted into life imprisonment.

Admittedly, total five accused including the appellant were charged for indiscriminate firing at the complainant party as a result whereof three persons had lost their lives

However, it was uncertain as to fire shots of which of the five accused proved fatal

Similarly, as per report/FIR and testimony of the eye-witnesses, motive behind the occurrence was an altercation between deceased and absconding co-accused persons, therefore, taking the said aspects as mitigating circumstances, it was appropriate and in the interest of justice that sentence of accused be reduced to imprisonment for life on three counts under S.302(b) P.P.C

Accordingly, conviction of the accused under S.302(b), P.P.C., was maintained, however, his sentence of death on three counts as Ta'zir was reduced/converted to imprisonment for life on three counts as Ta'azir

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.