Sentence

Deterrence is a factor to be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence specially sentence of death.

Aim is equally to reform him during the period of incarceration so that he may be brought back into the society as a peace-loving and law abiding citizen

Logic of imprisonment is not only to incarcerate the accused person within four walls of the jail, the purpose is to reform the convict.

Law provided a sentence for the offence not less than imprisonment for life but the command of law escaped the notice of Trial Court

Impugned judgment was set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh.

Harsher the sentence, stricter the standard of proof.

Case carrying harder sentence must be proved through strict proofs in order to rule out the possibility of any error.

Courts must never be influenced with severity of the offence while appreciating evidence for finding guilt or innocence because severity of an offence could only reflect upon quantum of punishment

High Court observed that even in tragic cases, the courts are always required to follow the legally established position that it was intrinsic worth and probative value of evidence which played a decisive role in determining the guilt or innocence and not heinousness or severity of offence.

Harder the sentence, stricter the standard of proof.

Harder the sentence is, stricter the standard of proof should be.

Harder the sentence, stricter the standard of proof.

If the prosecution asserted a motive but failed to prove the same then such failure on the part of the prosecution might have reacted against a sentence of death passed against a convict on the charge of murder and led to the alternate sentence of life imprisonment.

Single mitigating circumstance, available in a particular case, would be sufficient for not awarding the penalty of death but life imprisonment, if the court entertained some doubt, albeit not sufficient for acquittal

Judicial caution must be exercised to award the alternative sentence of life imprisonment, lest an innocent person might not be sent to the gallows.

Normal penalty for murder was death sentence, however, once the Legislature had provided for awarding alternative sentence of life imprisonment, it would be difficult to hold that in all cases of murder, the death penalty was normal one and shall ordinarily be awarded

High Court observed that if the intent of the Legislature was to take away the discretion of the court, then it would have omitted from clause (b) of S. 302, P.P.C., the alternative sentence of life imprisonment

Fundamental principle of Islamic Jurisprudence on criminal law was to do justice with mercy, being the Attribute of Allah Almighty but on the earth the same had been delegated and bestowed upon the Judge administering justice in criminal cases, therefore, extra degree of care and caution was required to be observed by the judges while determining the quantum of sentence, depending upon the facts and circumstances of particular case/cases

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

No clear guideline in that regard could be laid down because facts and circumstances of one case differed from the other, however, it became the essential obligation of the judge in awarding one or the other sentence to apply his judicial mind with a deep thought to the facts of a particular case

If the judge/judges entertained some doubt, albeit not sufficient for acquittal, judicial caution must be exercised to award the alternative sentence of life imprisonment, lest an innocent person might not be sent to the gallows

So it is better to respect the human life, as far as possible, rather put it at end, by assessing the evidence, facts and circumstances of a particular murder case.

Factors stated:

If the offence was proved, maximum sentence provided for the offence was to be awarded, however, court had a discretion to award sentence keeping in view the circumstances of each case justifying the severity or leniency.

Significant factors to be considered by courts to determine a proportionate/fit sentence stated.

Appellate Court could only intervene in sentence imposed by Trial Court if such sentence was demonstrably unfit, or, the sentencing judge made an error in principle that had an impact on the sentence

Appellate courts should give sentencing judges the tools to depart from past precedents and provide appropriate sentences when a body of precedent no longer responded to society's current understanding and awareness of the gravity of a particular offence and blameworthiness of particular offenders or to the legislative initiatives of Parliament

However, appellate courts could not interpret or apply the standard of review to enforce ranges or starting points of sentences, as doing so would be to usurp the role of Parliament in creating categories of offences.

Factors to be considered by sentencing court stated.

When an offence is proved, it has to be met with the maximum sentence provided therefor, however, no yardstick exists to restrict or curb the discretion of the Trial Court while passing the sentence

Circumstances of each case justify the severity or leniency in passing the sentence.

Unspecific sentences indicate that the court has to appreciate circumstances indicative of reformation of a convict before deciding about the quantum of sentence

Discretionary punishments are flexible enough to take into account the needs of individual and society and also to realize the maximum general benefit to society and the reformation possibilities of the criminal

Ultimate goal of rehabilitation is to restore a convicted offender to a constructive place in society through some combination of treatment, education, and training.

Complainant admitted during cross-examination that charas was packed in several number of pieces and from all such pieces only 10 grams of charas was separated

Sample parcel containing 10 grams of charas allegedly taken from different pieces of the contraband sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory could not be considered as a representative sample of the bulk in view of the which, conviction for the bulk of narcotics weighing 2115 grams of charas was not warranted under the law

Accused could only be convicted and sentenced for the possession of contraband only to the extent of sample parcel

Conviction and sentence awarded to the accused under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was set aside and he was convicted under S. 9(a) of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months

Appeal was dismissed.

Person found guilty under S.302(b), P.P.C. can either be punished with death or with imprisonment for life and it is a misconception to say that death is the normal penalty provided for murder

Legislature has not provided any guideline as to when a person is to be punished with death or in what circumstances he is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life, therefore, it can safely be inferred that quantum of sentence depends upon the discretion of court.

Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and S.23(1)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 only provide the words "may extend to fourteen years" and thus do not restrain the Court from awarding lesser sentence in its discretion keeping in view S.423, Cr.P.C.

By using words 'may extend to' in such provisions of law provides unspecific sentences and is indicative that courts have to appreciate circumstances indicative of reformation of a convict before deciding about quantum of sentence.

If at any stage, both the sentences of death and the imprisonment for life could possibly be awarded, the better option for the court was to give preference to the lesser sentence, as a matter of caution.

Harsher the sentence, stricter the standard of proof.

Capital punishment could be awarded if unbroken chain of circumstances from the stage of last seen evidence till death of the deceased was established by conclusive evidence.

Court was not bound to pass conviction or sentence merely on confessional statement with reference to S. 265-E(2), Cr.P.C.

If the charge of an offence carried capital punishment of death or transportation of life, the court was required to examine the prosecution evidence, even if the guilt was admitted by the accused in response to a charge.

Offending words publically uttered by the accused-contemnor had received wide publicity nationally as well internationally, and they amounted to a grave contempt of the Supreme Court yet there were some mitigating circumstances available warranting withholding the maximum sentence provided for the offence by the law

Accused was about sixty years of age, he was an Advocate for the last about thirty years, he had submitted an unconditional apology though belatedly, he had thrown himself at the mercy of the Court and had decided not to contest these proceedings and upon his conviction for the offence of Contempt of Court he was to be visited with a disqualification under Art. 63(1)(g) of the Constitution

Accused was convicted for the offence under S. 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, read with Art. 204(2) of the Constitution and was sentenced under S. 5(1) of the Ordinance to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days

Since the accused had been convicted and sentenced by the Supreme Court for acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity and independence of the judiciary and for defaming and bringing the judiciary into ridicule, therefore, by virtue of Art. 63(1)(g) of the Constitution he ipso facto stood disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) for a period of five years from date of present judgment.

Consequence which flows after conviction can be looked as sentence.

Vital elements enumerated.

Conviction involving ultimate penalty cannot be based upon a presumptive or moral satisfaction in absence of positive proof.

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

Plea of reduction in sentence, however shall not be available to hardened criminals, guilty of serious offences.

Prosecution case was that accused kidnapped a boy of four years of age, committed unnatural offence, murdered him and then burnt the dead body of the victim

Accused had not challenged the merits of the case but had sought his release after having undergone more than fifteen years imprisonment of his life imprisonment

Jail Role specified that the accused had served sixteen years imprisonment

Accused after having served more than fifteen years of his substantive sentence, excluding remission, would qualify to be released from jail and it would meet the ends of justice if the remainder of his sentence was remitted in circumstances

Appeal was disposed of by remitting the remaining sentence of accused and he was ordered to be released accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, negligent act as to endanger human life, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Cruel double murder

Sentence

Sentence for offence punishable with death

Prosecution had proved its case against the accused and co-accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Accused-appellants did not deserve any leniency in sentence in premeditated cruel double murder

No mitigating circumstances had been pointed out

Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

If the accused pleaded guilty, the court was to record the plea and could convict the accused.

Accused convicted by competent court of law of foreign country could be transferred to Pakistan pursuant to mutual agreement between the two countries, and upon being transferred to Pakistan, he would be governed by the laws of Pakistan as if it was a sentence imposed by a court in Pakistan

Where the sentence awarded to the accused was not compatible with the laws of Pakistan, a Court of competent jurisdiction in Pakistan could adopt such a sentence to make it compatible with the laws of Pakistan.

Under S. 265-E, Cr.P.C. the Trial Court in a session case, had the discretion to record the plea of the accused and if he pleaded guilty to the charge, it may convict him in its discretion

Under S. 265-F, Cr.P.C., however, if the Trial Court did not convict the accused on his plea of guilt, it shall proceed to hear the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution

Such discretion was to be exercised with extra care and caution, and ordinarily on such admission, awarding capital sentence of death should be avoided and to prove the guilt of an accused, evidence of the complainant or the prosecution had to be recorded, in the interest of safe administration of justice.

Failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the motive may react upon a sentence of death.

Where harsher sentence was involved, stricter proof was required to substantiate the charge.

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

Where in appropriate cases some extenuating circumstances were available, the court had the discretion to award lesser punishment of imprisonment of life provided under S. 302(b) of Penal Code

Sentence of imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court to the accused along with compensation was justified.

In absence of any motive, conviction on capital sentence could be recorded.

Appellate court had ample power to cure/rectify the minor discrepancy committed by Trial Court in sentencing an accused.

Death sentence could be awarded on circumstantial evidence, provided all circumstances constituted a chain and no link was missing and their combined effect was that the guilt of the accused was established beyond any shadow of doubt.

Admittedly accused was a woman and it was alleged that she was not expected to be involved in the business of drug or had the strength to carry two suitcases

Scope

Normally drug peddlers had adopted obnoxious device by engaging womenfolk and the children and through them, crimes were being committed and ultimately mercy was sought against such accused on humanitarian grounds

Adequate punishment, instead of showing sympathy on the ground that accused was woman or child, would be awarded to curb such menace otherwise the actual accused involved in such heinous crime, which was against the society, would be encouraged and carriers would be freely available to promote the crime with the hope that after spending small period in the prison, they would be set at liberty despite of committing heinous crime of drug trafficking

Appeal was partly allowed, conviction of accused was maintained but her sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for five years and six months.

Accused was awarded sentence of simple imprisonment of one month with fine of Rs. 5000/- for contracting second marriage without permission during subsistence of earlier marriage

Appeal filed by the accused was dismissed observing that right of appeal had not been provided under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961

Validity

Entire proceedings had been conducted by the Trial Court under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Proceedings conducted by the Trial Court were judicial proceedings

Complaint under S. 6(5) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 was entertained as 'complaint' under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and accused was tried accordingly

Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 would regulate the proceedings in the complaint under S. 6(5) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961

Appeal under Ss. 408/409 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 could be brought by any convict awarded sentence under S. 6(5) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961

Executive Magistrate empowered to conduct any trial under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 was court subordinate to the Sessions Judge

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside

Appeal filed by the accused should be deemed to be pending before the Appellate Court for decision on merits

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, ordered that different sentences awarded to accused should run concurrently instead of consecutively

Validity

Accused committed the murders in a brutal manner, and for that account, consciously the Trial Court, while awarding sentences to him, ordered that the same shall run consecutively

Discretionary power vested in the Court to direct that the awarded sentences shall run consecutively or concurrently was to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case, keeping in view the scope of S.35, Cr.P.C., the nature and manner of occurrence and the gravity of the offence

Supreme Court observed that in such circumstances it seemed quite strange and unreasonable that the High Court had done away with the conditionality of such sentences running consecutively while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, which was equitable and discretionary in nature and not meant to give premium to a criminal for commission of such heinous crime

Appeal was allowed accordingly

Judgment of High Court was set aside.

Police officer committing a crime was dealt with more sternly in the matter of his sentence than an ordinary person because an expectation was attached with a police officer that in all manner of circumstances he would conduct himself strictly in accordance with the law and under no circumstances he would take the law in his own hands.

Death penalty in general may violate the prohibition against the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments" [Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution]

Use of death penalty in present times involved fundamental Constitutional defects, namely, serious unreliability; arbitrariness in application, and unconscionably long periods of time spent by prisoners on death row, which aggravated the cruelty of the death penalty and undermined its penological purpose

Survey of case-law and research studies (in the US) from the last four decades showed that innocent people had been executed; that exonerations occurred far more frequently where capital convictions, rather than ordinary criminal convictions, were at issue; that in cases of capital punishment there was a greater likelihood of an initial wrongful conviction because the crimes at issue were typically horrendous murders, and thus accompanied by intense community pressure on police, prosecutors, and jurors to secure a conviction; that flawed forensic evidence/testimonies had been used in securing death sentences; that in many instances courts sentenced defendants to death without complying with the necessary procedures; that death sentences were imposed capriciously and randomly, i.e., without the reasonable consistency legally necessary to reconcile its use with the Constitution's commands; that factors that most clearly ought to determine as to who received the death penalty, namely, comparative egregiousness of the crime, often did not, while circumstances that ought not to significantly determine application of the death penalty, such as race, gender, local geography, and resources and community biases, often did; that the capital justice system was warped by political pressures; that whatever interest in retribution might be served by the death penalty as presently administered, that interest could be served almost as well by a sentence of life in prison without parole, and that statistical and empirical evidence did not suggest that the death penalty had a significant deterrent effect

System of death penalty that sought procedural fairness and reliability brought with it delays that severely aggravated the cruelty of capital punishment and significantly undermined the rationale for imposing a sentence of death in the first place

Compensation of attorneys for death penalty representation remained inadequate, and it had not proved possible to increase capital defense funding significantly

Nearly all prisoners on death row were in isolation for most of the day, and such prolonged solitary confinement produced numerous deleterious harms

Dehumanizing effect of solitary confinement was aggravated by uncertainty as to whether a death sentence would in fact be carried out

Furthermore, given the negative effects of confinement and uncertainty, many death row inmates volunteered to be executed, abandoning further appeals or considered committing suicide

Detailed reasons stated. [Minority view]