Sentence

  1. Enhancement of sentence by Shariat Court in case of reference — Plea that District Qazi awarded sentence of seven years in default of payment of ‘diyyat’ — Show cause notice was necessary before enhancing the sentence — Held: Not acceptable –Shariat Court acts in the reference as trial Court and it has to answer the reference independent of the views taken by the District Criminal Court. Noor Ahmad  v. The State 1992 SCR 1 (G)
  2. Motive — Motive was not a sine qua non for proving the offence of murder. It was not laid down if a motive is not proved death sentence should not be awarded. Shabbir Ahmad v. The State and another 1997 SCR 206 (D)
  3. Quantum of sentence — Altering death sentence into life imprisonment — Held: Presence of injuries on person of accused do have bearing on the question of sentence — Held further: It will be appropriate not to impose the extreme penalty of death and the sentence of life imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. Shabbir Ahmad v. The State and another 1997 SCR 206 (H)
  4. Sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused by the trial Court was not challenged so judgment attained finality and the same could not be re-opened by the Shariat Court as well as by this Court. Habib-ur-Rehman & 9 others v. Muhammad Aziz and 2 others 1997 SCR 253 (A)
  5. If a case of murder is proved against an accused person normal sentence which is to be awarded is death — For awarding lesser sentence there should be some recognised reasons. Muhammad Ramzan  v. The State & another 1998 SCR 47 (A)
  6. Applicant was awarded death sentence by the Shariat Court — Appeal filed in the Supreme Court — Application was moved to keep the petitioner out of death cell till disposal of the appeal and also to shift him to District Bagh — Held: It would be in the interest of justice as well as legal and fair exercise of discretion that petitioner be kept out of death cell — The request for shift to Bagh repelled. Muhammad Jahangir v. The State & another 2003 SCR 227 (A)
  7. Sentence must be in accordance with the offender, rather than the offence and the sentence requires utmost care and caution — It is the primary function of the civilized State to punish the criminal — The question arises whether a criminal is to be regarded by a society as a nuisance to be removed or an enemy to be crushed or a patient to be treated or a factory child to be disciplined — It is the duty of the State to bring reforms in the jails and create such kindof atmosphere that after coming out from jail one should not think of commission of crime rather he restrain others from commission of crime — Government has to open institutions in jails where faculties of religious and science education should be provided to the accused persons — While awarding sentence neither the accused should be regarded as a nuisance for the society, enemy to be crushed, nor a patient to be treated or a factory child to be disciplined — He should be simply punished to show others whosever will commit the offence has to undergo the sentence — The basic object of the sentence is to create deterrence in the society — The punishment is a lesson to the rest of the society and the offenders to restrain from commission of crime — If no punishment is awarded to offenders or criminals then harmony, peace and tranquillity of the society shall be jeopardised. Muhammad Yaqub v.    The State and another 2007 SCR 332 (F)
  8. The question of sentence requires utmost care — It must be weighed in golden scale and should be balanced without being unnecessary harsh. M. Khurshid Khan v. M. Basharat 2007 SCR 1 (Q)
  9. While awarding sentence the Court has to be satisfied that (I) murder has been committed, (ii) murder has been committed by the accused, and (iii) question of sentence should be determining according to gravity of offence — The question of sentence demands utmost care — Sentence must be weighed in gold scale — The elements to be considered for assessing the quantum of sentence are(A) nature of offence, (B) circumstances in which it was committed, (C) degree of deliberation shown by the offender, (D) the provocation which he receive, (E) the antecedents of prisoner up to the time of sentence and (F) his age and character. Abdul Rehman & another  v. Muhammad Mushtaq & another 2007 SCR 100 (E)
  10. In the matter of sentence a very wide discretion has been given to the Courts — It must be exercised judicially — The basic object of punishment is to create a deterrence so that no one should dare to commit further crime the basic object of punishment is to make the evil doer an example and warning to all others like minded persons. Abdul Rehman & another v. Muhammad Mushtaq & another 2007 SCR 100 (F)  1977 SCMR 309 relied.
  11. In a murder case the death sentence is a normal penalty — One, while diverting towards lesser sentence, has to furnish the detailed reasoning but no reasoning is required for awarding the death sentence because it is a normal penalty. Abdul Rehman & another  v. Muhammad Mushtaq & another 2007 SCR 100 (G) 1999 SCMR 1469, 1999 SCMR 2722 and 1997 P.Cr.L.J.1522 relied.
  12. The sentence must be weighed in golden scale and should be properly balanced to deter the rest of society from the commission of crimes without being unnecessary harsh. Niaz Ahmed v. The State & 2 others 2008 SCR 326 (H)
  13. Courts below have twice sentenced Muhammad Yaqub to life imprisonment — Case is pending trial since 1989 and accused persons have remained incarcerated for quite a long time — In the circumstances of the case the sentence of life imprisonment satisfies the ends of justice to the extent of Muhammad Yaqub convict/appellant. M. Yaqub and 4 others v. The State 2009 SCR 104 (C)
  14. Where a case under section 302 APC is proved, then the normal penalty of death is required and in such case leniency should not be shown, except where prosecution has established the guilt of accused under section 302 through satisfactory and reliable evidence then penalty of death has to be awarded — The object of punishment in civilized society is to create deterrence in the society — If in any proved case lenient view is taken then peace, tranquillity and harmony of society will be jeopardised and vandalism shall prevail in the society. M. Tahir Aziz v. The State 2009 SCR 71 (D)
  15. Conversion of sentence of death as Qisas into life imprisonment as Tazir — Requirement of — Held: The sentence of death as Qisas can only be converted into life imprisonment as Tazir where requirement of section 304, A.P.C has not been fulfilled. Ghazanfar Ali v. The State & another 2015 SCR 1042 (G)
  16. Sentence in offences punishable with death — Held: It is recognized phenomenon of law that when the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt then it is paramount duty of the Courts to impose deterrent punishment on the offenders to make the evil doers an example and a warning to the like-minded people. Ghazanfar Ali v. The State 2015 SCR1042 (J) 2001 SCMR 988 rel.
  17. —Quantum of sentence— should be compatible with allegation—It may be observed here that the convict appellant is only liable to be punished in the offence which he has been committed as it is settled principle of law that the punishment should be compatible with the allegation. Zia Akbar & others v. The State & others 2017 SCR 923 (A)
  18. —Murder case—302 APC—sufficient evidence—mitigation—expectancy of life—quantum of punishment— determination of— trial Court awarded the death sentence as ‘tazir’ under section 302 (b) APC—Shariat Court upheld the sentence—through judgment under review, non-petitioners No.1 and 2 were acquitted of the charge and remained free from the clutches of the lockup, thus the principle of expectancy of life also attracted — minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses can lightly be ignored, however these may make some mitigating circumstance which can be taken into the account towards the quantum of the sentence— according to the enunciated principle of law it is not necessary that in all the circumstances, if the case is proved, the accused would have been awarded the death sentence, rather, life imprisonment is also a normal and legal sentence— Held: keeping in view the mitigating circumstances death sentenceawarded converted into life imprisonment. Yasmin Ashraf &others vs Abdul Rasheed Garesta &others 2018 SCR 661 (PS & T)
  19. —Murder case—appeal for enhancement of sentence— appeal for enhancement of sentence—Sentence awarded already served out by the convict—Held: the convict is entitled for release. Shahzad & others vs Rana Qamar & others 2018 SCR 727 (M) 2008 SCMR 817 rel
  20.  —reduction in sentence—Penal Code—offence under section 377—AJK Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985, S. 12—sodomy—reduction of sentence—contention of the convict that he is behind the bars since 2 years and has also faced the agony of trial, therefore, the sentence may be reduced to the extent of which he has already undergone—Held: that keeping in view that overall circumstances of the case, the agony of trial, the standard of evidence and the fact that the convict is not a previous convict, this appeal is partly accepted—the sentence awarded to the convict is reduced to the sentence already undergone. Imran Akhtar v. The State & another 2020 SCR 340 (D)
  21.  —it is settled principle of law that the punishment should be compatible with the allegation. Chaudhary Muhammad  Saeed V. Haji Javed Akram 2020 SCR 617 (D)  2008 SCR 326
  22.    —Quantum of—murder —the question of sentence requires utmost care—the same must be weighed in the golden scales and should be properly balanced to cater rest of society from the commission of crime without being unnecessary harsh. Rafique-ur-Rehman v. The State 2022 SCR 199 (F)
error: Content is protected !!