Extenuating circumstances

2026 SCMR 998 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 302(c), 109 & 34Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intentionReappraisal of evidenceExtenuating circumstancesTrial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to deathHigh Court converted the death sentence into imprisonment for lifeValidityAccused/petitioner was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firingOccurrence took place in the heat of the moment, without any premeditation or planning

Initial cause of the incident was the annoyance arising from the deduction in the price of the pedi crop by the father of the petitioner-convict, which led to a spontaneous altercation and grappling between the parties

Incident occurred at the doorstep of the house of the petitioner-convict

To some extent the motive i.e. settlement on price of the pedi crop between the parties and the mode and manner of the occurrence had not been honestly placed by the prosecution before the Court

Significantly, the petitioner-convict, at the initial stage, was involved in a grappling/altercation with the deceased and others, which clearly indicated absence of premeditation or intention to kill

Act of firing was a spontaneous reaction in a heated moment

Moreover, only a single fire shot was fired and no acts of undue brutality were inflicted upon the deceased

Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case clearly fell within the ambit of Section 302(c), P.P.C, and not Section 302(b), P.P.C

Thus, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner-convict under Section 302(b), P.P.C were set-aside, however, he was convicted under Section 302(c), P.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15-years

With said modification in sentence, appeal was partly allowed.

2023 YLRN 56 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii) & 337(v)Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, damiyah, badi'ah, hashimahAppreciation of evidenceSentence, reduction inExtenuating circumstancesScopeAccused was charged for committing murder of the deceased and also causing injuries to four other persons

Record showed that motive as set up by the prosecution had not been believed and recovery of chhuri at the instance of accused was inconsequential

High Court observed that said facts led to the conclusion that there were sufficient extenuating circumstances on the basis of which the accused could not be made liable to the maximum punishment provided under S. 302(b), P.P.C., rather the ends of justice would be met, if his death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life

In such circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

2022 YLRN 55 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceQuantum of sentenceExtenuating circumstancesScopeAccused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant

Recovery of chhuri and motive had been disbelieved, 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 resulted into the incident

Conviction of accused was maintained but his sentence was altered from death to imprisonment for life, in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

2022 YLRN 13 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceExtenuating circumstancesScopeAccused was charged for committing murder of his wife by inflicting hatchet blows

Motive as set up by the prosecution had not been believed and recovery of hatchet at the instance of the accused was inconsequential

Said facts led to the conclusion that there were sufficient extenuating circumstances, on the basis of which the accused could not be made liable to the maximum punishment provided under S.302(b), P.P.C., rather the ends of justice would be met, if his death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life

Sentence of the accused was altered from death to imprisonment for life, in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

2018 YLRN 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii) & 34Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing madiah, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceSentence, reduction inExtenuating circumstancesScope

Prosecution had successfully proved the case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt, however, sentence of death passed by the Trial Court against accused was too harsh for the reasons that what happened between the deceased and accused persons immediately before the occurrence remained shrouded in mystery

Motive in the present case was not proved from the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses

Recovery of weapon of offence was inconsequential in that case

Said factors constituted extenuating circumstances, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused

Peculiar features of the case suggested that life imprisonment under S.302(b) Penal Code would be in apt with the facts and circumstances of the case

Capital sentence of death was reduced into life imprisonment.

2017 YLR 1283 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

ConvictionSentence, quantum ofExtenuating circumstancePrinciple

Accused was entitled for benefit of an extenuating circumstance while deciding the quantum of sentence.

2017 PCrLJ 1053 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceSentence, reduction inExtenuating circumstancesEffectMotive as alleged by complainant was that accused suspected that deceased had illicit relations with his maternal nieceName of maternal niece had not been mentioned in FIR nor disclosed during examination-in-chief of the eye witnessesCircumstances suggested that a vague motive had been introduced by the prosecution, which was based on oral assertionNo independent witness about alleged motive was produced during investigation or before Trial CourtProsecution had not been able to substantiate the motive

Failure of prosecution in proving motive would constitute extenuating circumstances for reducing the sentence of death to the imprisonment for life

Conviction was maintained, sentence of accused from death to imprisonment for life was altered in circumstances.

2017 PCrLJ 1053 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceSentence, reduction inExtenuating circumstances

Even if evidence of motive and the recovery of chhurri (weapon used) at the instance of accused was excluded from consideration, yet sufficient incriminating evidence was available on the record against accused in the form of straightforward and confidence inspiring ocular account furnished by two eye-witnesses fully supported by medical evidence, to maintain conviction of the accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C., which was maintained

Case was not that of capital punishment for the reason that motive and recovery of weapon of offence had not been proved

Circumstances established that there were sufficient extenuating circumstances, on the basis of which the accused could not be made liable to the maximum punishment provided under S. 302(b), P.P.C.

Conviction was therefore, maintained but sentence of accused from death to imprisonment for life was altered in circumstances.

2016 PCrLJN 12 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceSentence, reduction inExtenuating circumstancesAccused had been attributed the only blow to the deceased and same proved fatalAccused did not repeat the blow to the deceased, nor did he give any blow to the prosecution witnessesOccurrence took place on the spur of the moment on a quarrel between the children of the partiesAccused had also received injuries in the incidentNo premeditation on the part of accused having been noticed, case was not of capital punishment

Death sentence on the charge of murder, was a normal penalty for the offence of murder, but in appropriate cases where some extenuating circumstances were available, the court had the discretion to award lesser punishment of imprisonment for life, provided under S.302, P.P.C.

Maintaining the conviction of accused under S.302(b), P.P.C., sentence of accused was converted from punishment of death to imprisonment for life

Benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to accused.

2013 SCMR 1582 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 57 & 302(b)Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, Rr. 140 & 198(b)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188Qatl-e-amdReview of Supreme Court judgmentExpectancy of life, principle ofExtenuating circumstancesIncarceration in death cell"Imprisonment for life"Connotation

Accused was convicted and awarded death sentence by Trial Court and the same was maintained by High Court as well as by Supreme Court

Accused sought review of judgment on the plea of incarceration in death cell for eighteen years

Validity

Life imprisonment meant twenty five years rigorous imprisonment

Even under Rule 198(b) of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, life imprisonment meant twenty five years rigorous imprisonment

Accused was being incarcerated in death cell for last 17 years, one month and five days and by efflux of time he had also earned remissions for 18 years, eight months and ten days

Such were extenuating circumstances as, in the present case, where the accused did not repeat fire, chose lower part of body and accused and deceased being closely related to each other, incident having taken place on some abrupt altercation between them and that incarceration of accused in death cell for a long period, conversion of sentence from death to imprisonment for life would not only be proper rather it was in the interest of justice

Accused had not only served out one sentence provided under S.302(b), P.P.C. but had also suffered agonies of his remaining incarcerated in death cell for quite long period

Supreme Court keeping in view the principle of abundant caution, reviewed its earlier judgment and altered death sentence passed to accused into imprisonment for life

Petition was allowed.

2013 PCrLJ 603 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(a) & 7(c)Qatl-e-amd and terrorismAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtSentence, reduction inExtenuating circumstances

Accused along with co-accused, since declared proclaimed offender, was alleged to have committed murder by pouring acid on deceased thus was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to death

Validity

Prosecution fully established guilt of accused coming at the spot along with his co-accused who poured acid on deceased resulting in his death

Accused threw acid on various parts of the body of injured prosecution witness resulting in burning of his vital parts including genital region along with penis, so Trial Court rightly convicted him

As far as quantum of sentence was concerned, it was not a case of capital punishment and there were certain extenuating circumstances in favour of accused, as he had not thrown acid or caused any injury to the deceased

Accused was entitled to benefit of doubt as extenuating circumstances while deciding quantum of sentence

High Court maintained conviction of accused but altered death sentence into imprisonment for life.