Quantum of sentence

Accused were charged that they entered into the home of complainant, tied his and his wife's hands and one of them murdered his son

Record showed that the prosecution's case revealed two conflicting narratives regarding the motive

One asserted that the murder occurred during a robbery/dacoity, while the other proposed the possibility of targeted killing

Consequently, the true motive remained shrouded in mystery

Both versions had surfaced in the evidence, yet neither diminished the culpability of the appellants, nor any of the versions was supported by cogent evidence

Where the motive for the offence is shrouded in mystery then the extreme penalty of death is not warranted

Additionally, given that four individuals were implicated in the crime, the investigation and identification parade did not attribute a specific role to each appellant with respect to inflicting that injury

Said factual matrix, while not exonerating the appellants, constituted a relevant mitigating circumstance in the assessment of their respective culpabilities and the quantum of sentence

Thus, death sentence of the appellants was modified to the sentence of life imprisonment

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Expression "having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case" is of significance in the context of exercising discretion by Court in handing down one of the two prescribed punishments

If accused is convicted of an offence punishable with death and Court sentences him to any punishment other than death, then under S. 367(5), Cr.P.C. the reason why sentence of death was not passed has to be recorded in the judgment.

Civil servant was absent from duty and authorities laid out sufficient reasons to show why they did not want civil servant to continue with his service, considering that he willfully absented himself, did not obtain clearance before travelling, and started looking for jobs after travelling abroad, all of which the civil servant was unable to sufficiently rebut

Due process was observed and followed by authorities

Where absence from duty was admitted, there was no need to hold regular inquiry

Service Tribunal had no justifiable reason to reduce the punishment from major penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement on the pretext that the punishment was harsh given that the civil servant had studied abroad and was an asset for Pakistan

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal as it exceeded its jurisdiction by arbitrary exercise of discretion which was illegal and without lawful authority and restored penalty imposed by authorities

Appeal was allowed.

Motive attributed to accused was deceased's opposition to his intention of selling the house, which stood proved on record

It is a matter of common experience that domestic disputes over property frequently arise in our society

Resorting to such a brutal act of setting one's spouse on fire reflected violent disposition of accused and pointed towards premeditation

Established motive, when read in conjunction with brutal and deliberate manner in which offence was committed, left no room for doubt that murder of deceased was preplanned and intentional

Crime committed by accused was extremely heinous

Under the doctrine of "rarest of rare", death sentence may be imposed where the offence is exceptionally brutal, shocking to the collective conscience of society and where there exists a compelling need for deterrence

Offence was of the most brutal nature, wherein accused was found guilty of cold-blooded murder of his own wife, mother of his children, that too within the confines of their matrimonial home and in the presence of their young children

Supreme Court declined to extend any leniency to accused and maintained conviction and death sentence awarded to accused

Appeal was dismissed.

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.

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.

Record showed that the deceased was at the mercy of the accused at the time of occurrence, but he had not repeated the blow and he himself told the witnesses that he had hit the deceased with a spade and if they could save the life of deceased, they should do it

These were the mitigating circumstances, due to which the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced from life imprisonment to 14 years

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Accused was charged for making firing upon his brothers and mother, due to which his two brothers died, while his mother and one brother sustained firearm injuries

In the present case, there existed a family dispute in between the family members of the said house and also the accused had divorced his wife

On the relevant date the quarrel had taken place all of a sudden without the element of pre-mediation and further two family members of the said house had also lost their lives

High Court observed that awarding of capital punishment to the accused was unwarranted, which other increased the sorrow of grieved family, hence, while maintaining the conviction, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Record showed that the motive set up by the prosecution had not been believed and the recovery of weapon of offence had not been proved, thus, it was not a case of capital punishment, thus, death sentence awarded to the accused was converted into imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence.

First Information Report mentioned that occurrence in issue had taken place on account of a trivial verbal altercation between the accused and the deceased over the payment of Rs.200/500, however, it was matter of record that deceased had telephoned to accused for receiving the amount, which clearly showed that accused and deceased had good working relationship

No previous enmity existed between the parties

Circumstances of the case unequivocally suggested that the occurrence had taken place at the spur of the moment without any premeditation on the part of the accused

Motive asserted by the prosecution was not proved at trial

Accused fired multiple fires upon deceased as accused demanded Rs.500/-from deceased and deceased gave Rs.200/- could not be believed

Circumstances show that something else had happened prior to the occurrence which was suppressed by both the parties, so immediate cause of occurrence was shrouded in mystery

If the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the murder, the alternate sentence of life imprisonment as opposed to the death penalty would be justified

Appeal against conviction was partly allowed and death sentence of the accused was reduced to imprisonment for life.

Accused was charged that he along with co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to one person died while complainant sustained injuries

Prosecution had not been able to prove through evidence the motive for the accused for murdering the deceased or attempting to murder complainant

Whether it was the pistol shot of accused which caused the fatal wound on the deceased which caused his death was not clear

Death sentence of the accused was reduced to one of life imprisonment

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Motive had been set up in the FIR that accused was addict of the narcotics and he was restrained by complainant and his uncles but without any result

Prosecution case was that accused committed the murder of daughter of complainant as he was ousted from village by complainant and uncles of accused, thus, accused had specific motive against the complainant and his uncles but it was not clear as to why accused committed the murder of deceased girl

Investigating Officer had also failed to interrogate/investigate about the motive as set up in the FIR

Prosecution had failed to prove motive from some independent piece of evidence

Medical Officer conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and found her victim of sexual abuse

Chemical Examiner's report showed that human sperms were detected

Such circumstances of the case had put to a caution in the matter of sentence of accused

Whole prosecution evidence was silent on that aspect of the case

Real cause of occurrence was shrouded in mystery and was completely suppressed by both the parties

When prosecution asserted a motive but failed to prove the same then failure on the part of prosecution might react against the sentence of death

High Court observed that life imprisonment would be appropriate, in circumstances

Death penalty was reduced to imprisonment for life

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Absence of motive or absence of proof of the same would be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to determine the quantum of sentence.

Record showed that although all the other formalities vis-a-vis recording the statement of the accused under S.164, Cr.P.C., had been duly complied with, yet same was recorded after a delay of fourteen days

Said fact was an irregularity, not vitiating the confessional statement itself, but putting the court to caution

Accused made one fire upon the deceased and had not repeated the same

Alteration of the death penalty into imprisonment for life would be a conscionable wage in the circumstances

Consequently, the penalty of death awarded to accused was altered into imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Accused was a juvenile offender at the time of commission of offence, who was convicted and sentenced for committing Qatl-i-amd of a young boy

Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life

Validity

Accused was charged by complainant in a promptly lodged report within forty-five minutes, which ruled out possibility of deliberations or consultations as occurrence took place at 1100 hours while report was lodged by him at 1145 hours

Complainant appeared as prosecution witness and gave details of occurrence by supporting contents of FIR

Prosecution succeeded in establishing guilt of accused

High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence passed against accused, as the same was based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and there was nothing to indicate that it was either based on any error of law or the same was different to well-established principles of judicial approach or the same could in any manner be characterized as unjustified

Quantum of sentence under S.16 of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, when accused was juvenile at the time of commission of offence, death sentence could not be awarded

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he along with co-accused persons while armed with deadly weapons committed murder of his wife/sister of the complainant and caused injuries to his daughter by firing on account of some disputes over Rishta of her daughter

Admittedly, the accused fired at the deceased as well as the injured witness inside his house

Motive when had been disbelieved then it was not clear that what actually had transpired between the parties at the spot immediately prior to the occurrence

Death penalty awarded to the accused in such circumstances, was not proper and the same was reduced to imprisonment for life, which would meet the ends of justice

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

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.

Mitigating circumstances were present i.e. the motive of the incident remained shrouded in mystery, also been conceded by prosecution

If no motive had been proved by the prosecution, that was a ground which the court might use in exercising its sentencing discretion to reduce the sentence of death to life imprisonment

In such circumstances, the sentence was reduced from death penalty to life imprisonment

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Record showed that firstly, the evidence of recovery of the rifle from the possession of the accused had been disbelieved; secondly, the prosecution had alleged a motive in the case but failed to prove the same and 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 into the death of deceased, therefore, the death sentence awarded to the accused was quite harsh

Sentence of death awarded to the accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C. was altered to imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Record showed that there was minor contradiction concerning the date of arrest of the accused and the fact that the prosecution had neither asserted or been able to prove a motive

Such circumstances were sufficient to reduce the two sentences of death into imprisonments for life which shall run concurrently

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Accused was charged that he along with co-accused with common intention duly armed with weapons and creating unlawful assembly, had committed murder of son and nephew of the complainant

High Court observed that no lenient view could be taken as the circumstances of the present case indicated that the act of the accused was gruesome and merciless; keeping in view the brutality of the crime, where two innocent persons were murdered in the house of the accused, the complete lack of mitigating circumstances and the presence of aggravating circumstances whereby the deceased received four separate firearm injuries whereas the other deceased received eleven separate firearm injuries and the need to discourage such kind of offences, a deterrent sentence was the appropriate one

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Both sentences are alternative to one another, however, awarding one or the other sentence shall essentially depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case

Multiple factors may be considered to award the death sentence for the offence of murder and equal number of the factors would be there not to award the same but instead a life imprisonment

Extra degree of care and caution is required to be observed by the Court while determining the quantum of sentence, depending upon the facts and circumstances of particular case

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

Facts and circumstances of one case differ from the other, however, it is the essential obligation of the Court in awarding one or the other sentence to apply its judicial mind with a deep thought to the facts of a particular case

Where the Court entertains some doubt, albeit not sufficient for acquittal, judicial caution must be exercised to award the alternative sentence of life imprisonment.

Charas packed in 226 packets, each packet contained 3 or 5 slabs, total weighing 285 kilograms was alleged to be recovered from accused

Samples from one slab each from all packets was taken and sent to Chemical Examiner and the same was declared as narcotic substance

Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life

Validity

Entire quantity of recovered substance was said to have weighed 285 kilograms but as the samples for chemical examination were not taken from each of the slab contained in 226 packets and as each of the slab was not separately weighed, therefore, it could not be assumed that the entire 285 kilograms of the recovery was narcotic substance

Sample taken from one slab in each of the 226 packets could not be considered to be a 'representative sample' of all 3 or 5 slabs contained in each of the 226 packets

Slabs from which samples were not taken could not be considered as narcotic substance as sentence under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, depended on the quantity of recovered narcotic substance

Quantity of Charas recovered from the possession of accused did not exceed 10 kilograms, therefore, he could not be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life

Accused had been behind the bars for more than 5½ years

High Court maintained the conviction but reduced to the sentence to one already undergone

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Normal sentence in a murder case was death and the court while awarding the same was not under obligation to record any reason

While awarding a lesser sentence, court had to record reasons

Every possible care and caution had to be adopted

If the offence was proved against the accused, the court was to award sentence for that offence, even if it was a capital punishment.

Record showed that complainant in the written complaint had mentioned that the motive behind the occurrence was previous enmity

Scope

When previous enmity was admitted by the prosecution, the same would create mitigating circumstance in the case

In the presence of mitigating circumstance, capital punishment could not be awarded

Life imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court was maintained by the High Court.

Both the eye-witnesses had sufficiently explained the mode and manner of the occurrence, place of occurrence, locale of injuries sustained by the deceased and the kind of weapon used by the accused

Eye¬-witnesses had categorically stated before the Trial Court that the accused had caused firearm injuries on different parts of the body of deceased, which had proved fatal

Accused was real brother of the deceased; therefore, there was no mis-identity or false implication of the accused

Both the eye-witnesses had remained consistent on each and every material aspect of the case during lengthy cross-examination

No justification existed for the complainant, wife of the deceased, to spare actual culprit and involve the real brother of the deceased

Testimony of the defence witness, the mother of the deceased, who had stated to have forgiven the deceased in name of Allah Almighty, was not needed to be discussed, as her statement was not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case in the sense that she had not claimed to be the eye-witness of the occurrence, nor had she nominated any other person as the actual culprit

Post mortem examination had fully corroborated the ocular account

Recovery of the crime weapon and empties, being doubtful, was inconsequential; however, recoveries were not substantial piece of evidence, and the same were only corroborative evidence

Recoveries, even if disbelieved, would have no bearing on the fate of the case, and if the case was otherwise proved on basis of ocular account, medical evidence and motive, then conviction and sentence could be imposed

Prosecution had successfully proved the motive, which was a dispute over house

Accused was entitled to the benefit of extenuating circumstances while deciding quantum of sentence as mother of the deceased had forgiven the accused and the recovery had not been believed; eye-witness, wife of the deceased, had deposed that prior to her arrival at the place of occurrence (along with her brother), what had happened between the accused and the deceased was not in their knowledge; all such facts had been taken as mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused, due to which capital sentence of death had not been awarded

Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment

High Court, upheld the conviction and sentence accordingly.

If alleged offence was punishable with imprisonment or fine or both, court, while examining the question of bail, was to consider the minimum aspect of the sentence i.e. fine, provided for the alleged offence in the Schedule.

Approach (formula) adopted by courts for reducing sentence of a convict on the basis that quantity of recovered chars garda in powder form could be reduced in weight by 30-50% when processed, therefore, the quantity to be considered in determining the quantum of sentence would be the reduced (processed) quantity

Legality

Extending such benefit to an accused by reducing the quantity of recovered chars garda had to be rejected as being conjectural and unlawful

Nowhere in the entire scheme of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the Courts had been empowered to either send the recovered quantity of chars garda for processing or arbitrarily reduce its quantity without any supporting material in such behalf or any intelligible criteria or legal justification for such purpose.

Question as to whether in a case involving several convicts, the total quantity of narcotic substance recovered from their possession was to be equally distributed between them to determine the quantum of their individual sentences

Provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 did not permit the practice of equal distribution of total quantity of narcotic substance recovered from the possession of more than one convict in order to determine their individual sentences within the parameters of S.9 of the said Act

If in a case narcotic substance was recovered from the possession of more than one convict then, following the principle of their joint and collective liability, each one of them would be liable for punishment on the basis of the whole quantity of narcotic substance so recovered.

Court, while dealing with the question of bail, has to consider the minimum quantum of sentence provided for the alleged offence.

Court, while dealing with question of bail, should consider the aspect of minimum sentence for the alleged offence as provided in the Schedule.

While deciding question of bail, court has to consider minimum aspect of sentence provided for the alleged offence.

Cruel and brutal manner in which accused had taken three lives was utterly offensive and his conduct had failed to evoke any sympathy

Accused had not only killed his sister for choosing a matrimonial partner on her own but also killed his brother-in-law and an infant daughter of his sister apart from killing a fully formed fetus inside the womb of his sister

One of the sentences provided by law for an offence of murder was death and accused deserved no less, particularly when he had killed not one but three innocent persons and also a fully formed fetus

Supreme Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded to accused by two courts below

Appeal was dismissed.

Normal penalty under Cl. (b) of S. 302, P.P.C., was death sentence, but accused was awarded sentence for imprisonment for life being juvenile

Age factor could only be seen in case of minor offences, but case of heinous offence of murder could not be treated at par with minor offences

Age, type and seriousness of offences and past record of criminal activities of accused at time of his conviction was a relevant factor, which should also have been adhered to Juvenile Justice System, which was meant to treat a child accused with care offering him chance to reform and settle into mainstream of society, but the same could not be allowed to be used as ploy to dupe course of justice while conducting trial and treatment of heinous offences.

Accused was convicted by Trial Court for committing murder of three persons and he was sentenced to death on three counts

Validity

Occurrence took place in house of accused and he got recovered iron rod duly stained with human blood

Medical evidence corroborated ocular account and doctor observed that one of the deceased was young girl of sixteen years of age but her hymen was found old torn, which showed that she was girl of easy virtue and of loose character

Suspicion of inter se illicit relations of deceased further aggravated from the circumstance that all three deceased i.e. two young boys and sister of accused were present in cattle-shed, involved in such activity as such voluntary involvement of sister of accused could easily be presumed by a man of ordinary prudence

Finding opportunity to teach lesson to deceased, accused committed murders

No one could be given licence to kill his own young sister and two young unarmed boys in such brutal way

Prosecution had proved its case against accused as far as murder of three persons was concerned and he was rightly convicted by Trial Court under S.302(b), P.P.C.

Presence of two deceased boys residents of village situated at considerable distance from place of occurrence, in cattle shed of accused along with his sister in objectionable condition was a circumstance which showed that deceased had themselves invited trouble and contributed to circumstances leading to the occurrence and had provided opportunity to accused to commit murder

High Court converted sentence of death into imprisonment for life on three counts

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Accused was entitled to benefit of doubt as an extenuating circumstance, while deciding question of (quantum of) sentence.

Accused had committed cold-blooded murder of young son of the complainant aged 24 years by causing eleven incised dagger blows, besides causing injuries to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses

No mitigating circumstance was in favour of accused

Trial Court had rightly awarded the normal penalty of qatl-e-amd to accused, who deserved nothing lesser than death sentence

Prosecution having fully proved its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt, appeal against judgment of Trial Court was dismissed, and Murder Reference, was answered in the affirmative and sentence of death was confirmed, in circumstances.

Motive set up by complainant in F.I.R. was that there was dispute over impounding of buffaloes belonging to deceased by accused in his cattle compound and scuffle took place between them which resulted into death of deceased at the hands of accused

Accused tried to defeat motive set up by prosecution while putting forward a fragile plea that he had been booked by complainant due to dispute of property but such plea had not be substantiated by any material by defence

Certain extenuating circumstances existed which suggested that it was not a case of capital sentence as motive was specifically alleged by prosecution but the same had not been proved by any element of premeditation on the part of accused or any plan in his mind to commit murder of his real brother especially within the vicinity where parties to the case were living

Occurrence was result of sudden flare-up at the spur of moment between deceased and accused on a petty matter of detaining buffaloes belonging to deceased in compound of cattle of accused

Accused had caused only one injury on the person of deceased and did not repeat the same

High Court maintained conviction but converted death sentence into imprisonment for life

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Period of time already served by convict under sentence of death was certainly one of the numerous factors to be taken into account, while confirming death sentence but it was neither the only nor decisive consideration

Tender age of minor, the brutal and heinous nature of crime and pre-mediation persuaded the Supreme Court to agree with sentence awarded by Trial Court as well as High Court

Deterrent aspect of sentence could not be lost sight of either, as it was a crime of kidnapping for ransom of minor followed by murder

Sentence of death was rightly awarded by Trial Court and the courts should not hesitate nor search for laboured pretexts to award lesser sentence

Appeal was dismissed.

During raid 18 kilogarm of Charas was recovered from accused and Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life

Plea raised by accused was that he was father of four children and sole supporter of his family and had already served 15 years of sentence

Validity

Evidence of Excise officials was as good as that of any other person until and unless mala fide was brought on record against them

No specific mala fide was brought n record against Excise official and the evidence was corroborated by positive Chemical Report

Charas was recovered from the possession of accused on 20-7-2007 and samples were sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis on 21-7-2007

Positive report of samples was placed on record and mere production of attested copy of positive chemical report in evidence would not be fatal to prosecution case

Prosecution succeeded to prove its case against accused and Trial Court had rightly appreciated evidence brought on record

High Court maintained conviction of accused but reduced sentence of imprisonment for life to already undergone.