Extenuating circumstance

2018 PCrLJN 51 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 302Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceExtenuating circumstance

Death due to cumulative effect of injuries sustained by deceased at the hands of several accused persons was an extenuating circumstance.

2018 PCrLJN 51 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

SentenceExtenuating circumstance

Accused was entitled for benefit of every extenuating circumstance while deciding question of his sentence.

2018 PCrLJN 17 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 302Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtExtenuating circumstanceRecovery of crime weapon in absence of crime emptiesEffectFactors for not maintaining capital punishmentQuantum of sentencePrinciplesMitigating circumstances

Trial Court, having acquitted all the co-accused, convicted present accused for murder of brother of the complainant and sentenced him to death along with payment of compensation

Matter had been reported to the police with due promptitude

Both eye-witnesses were although the real brothers of the deceased and residents of the same house, where the incident had occurred, but their evidence could not be discarded merely because of their inter se relationship and their relationship with the deceased

Substitution in such like case was rare phenomenon, as the kith and kin of the deceased would not implicate an innocent person by letting off the real culprits

Ocular account was fully supported by the medical evidence

No evidence had been produced in proof of the motive set by the accused, either during investigation or the trial

Crime weapon along with five live bullets had although been recovered, the same was of no help to the prosecution, as no crime empty had been taken into possession from the spot

Accused had not been able to substantiate the plea that he had taken during his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., as he had neither produced any witness in proof of documentary evidence nor had he made any statement on oath as required under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C.

No active role had been assigned to the acquitted co-accused, and the only firearm injury on the head of the deceased had been attributed exclusively to the accused, who had been found fully involved during the course of investigation

Acquittal of the co-accused could not extend any favour or help to the accused

Even if the evidence in the form of recovery of rifle at the instance of the accused and the motive had been excluded from consideration, the conviction could still be maintained, as sufficient incriminating evidence against the accused existed in the form of straightforward and confidence inspiring ocular account furnished by prosecution witnesses, which was fully supported by the medical evidence

Accused was, however, not to be sentenced for capital punishment for the reasons: a specific motive, set by the accused, was disbelieved, case involved single fire shot and the accused had not been alleged to have made repeated fires; and the recovery of crime weapons was inconsequential

Accused was, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt as an extenuating circumstance, while deciding the question of sentence

Extra degree of care and caution was required to be observed by the court, while determining the quantum of sentence, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case

High Court, maintaining the conviction, converted the death sentence into life imprisonment

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2017 YLR 1328 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

SentenceExtenuating circumstance

Accused was entitled to benefit of extenuating circumstance while deciding question of sentence.

2017 PCrLJN 223 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

MotiveBurden of proofExtenuating circumstance

Prosecution had to prove the motive and when prosecution failed to prove motive, the same could be considered extenuating circumstance in favour of accused.

2017 PCrLJ 1099 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 302Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceSentence, reduction inExtenuating circumstance

Accused allegedly committed murder of deceased with Kalashnikov in the house of a doctor during marriage ceremony of his brother and sister

Motive was refusal of complainant to allow the accused to be a friend of his deceased son and complaining against him

Prosecution evidence was natural and trust-worthy

Presence of witnesses, being residents of same village and relatives of bride and bridegroom was also natural

Doctor in whose house alleged incident took place was not alleged by prosecution to be physically present at the time of incident; so non-citing him as witness would not affect the merits of case

Complainant's effort to keep the motive confined within two families was natural and it could not be read as his failure to prove the same

Site plan and medical evidence fully corroborated the prosecution evidence

Recovery of crime weapon had no relevance in the matter

Prosecution had failed to explain as to how while sitting on the chair the deceased sustained injury near his buttock from a bullet whose trajectory was almost vertical from down to upwards

Offence was not premeditated

Sentence of accused, in circumstances, was modified from S. 302(b) to 302(c), P.P.C.

Appeal was dismissed and accused was sentenced for the period he had already undergone under S. 302(c), P.P.C.

2017 PCrLJN 91 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302 & 311Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding or right of qisas in qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceSentence, reduction inExtenuating circumstance

Complainant (police) alleged that accused declared his daughter as kari (adulteress) and killed her with help of two others who escaped

FIR was lodged with promptitude

Non-disputing the death of deceased in an unnatural way inside the house of accused was sufficient circumstantial evidence

Eye-witnesses remained consistent on all the material aspects of the case

Ocular account was corroborated by circumstantial evidence in shape of recovery of blood-stained spade, blood stained earth and blood stained clothes of the deceased

Medical evidence also corroborated ocular account

Witnesses had no enmity with accused and no enmity was suggested by the defence

Accused did not repeat the blow and two co-accused who escaped strangulated deceased which was the main cause of death

Sentence was reduced from death sentence to imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2016 YLRN 51 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceExtenuating circumstanceSentence, reduction of

Accused admitting the killing of deceased by raising the plea of self-defence, but he had failed to bring any circumstance on record to satisfy the court which could support his said plea which appeared to be an afterthought

Deceased was empty handed at the relevant time

No evidence was brought on record by accused showing any aggression displayed by the deceased against accused at the time of incident

Defence plea was also not raised by accused during investigation

Evidence of two eye-witnesses was straightforward and confidence inspiring

Ocular evidence was fully corroborated by the medical evidence, coupled with recovery of the rifle

Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record in accordance with the settled principles

Accused who was about 81 years old, had no previous enmity or ill-will with the deceased; and there was some dispute between mother of the deceased and accused over disposal of garbage in the street

Accused was next door neighbour of the complainant party

Incident did not appear to be premeditated which took place on some abrupt altercation between accused and deceased

Accused also appeared to be sick and infirm person

Case of extenuating circumstances, was made out from the evidence on record, in circumstances

Conviction recorded by the Trial Court against accused was maintained, but his death sentence was reduced to imprisonment for life, in circumstances.

2015 PLD 426 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

SentenceBenefit of doubtExtenuating circumstance

Accused was entitled for the benefit of any doubt as an extenuating circumstance, while deciding question of sentence.

2013 SCMR 1554 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 324Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amdRe-appraisal of evidenceSentence, reduction inDeath sentence reduced to imprisonment for lifeExtenuating circumstance

Accused was convicted under S. 302(b), P.P.C. by Trial Court and sentenced to death for murdering the deceased with further direction to pay compensation of Rs. 100,000 to the legal heirs of deceased

Accused was further convicted under S. 324, P.P.C. by Trial Court for attempting to commit qatl-e-amd of injured witness and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with further direction to pay Rs. 25,000 to the injured witness

High Court dismissed appeal filed by accused against his conviction and confirmed death sentence awarded by Trial Court

Validity

Complainant claimed to have been present at the crime scene, however he was not attacked by the accused despite the fact that motive had been attributed to him

Such fact was by itself an extenuating circumstance on basis of which sentence of death awarded to accused could be reduced to that of life imprisonment

No motive had been attributed against the deceased and it could safely be held that motive was not proved by the prosecution

Conviction of accused under S.302(b), P.P.C. was maintained, however his death sentence was commuted to that of life imprisonment

Conviction and sentence of accused under S.324, P.P.C. was maintained

Awards of compensation by Trial Court, which had been upheld by High Court, were maintained

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.