Quantum of sentence

  1. Quantum of sentence in the case of murder is death or Qisas as the case may be — However, it depends upon the circumstances of a case whether the sentence of death or Qisas or any lesser punishment be awarded. M. Yaqub and 4 others v. The State & another 2009 SCR 104 (A)
  2. Murder case — for determination of quantum of punishment, the courts have to regard the facts and circumstances of the case. Ansar Mahmood v. Manazir Hussain another 2014 SCR 770 (C)
  3. Murder case — punishment — determination of quantum of punishment — no previous enmity or hostility — no provocation or exchange of harsh words — parties closely related — mother and wife of deceased were present at the time of occurrence — the wife of victim has not been cited as witness, whereas despite recording statement u/s 161, Cr.P.C. the mother of deceased has not been produced in the Court — whole story has not been brought on record — the story shrouded in mystery — report of firearm expert is not supportive to the prosecution — Observed: that there are concurrent findings of facts against the accused, therefore Court will not like to enter into discussion on credibility or incredibility of evidence but the facts especially the opinion of firearm expert, non-production of mother of deceased shall be taken into consideration.  Non-recording of the statement of the widow of the deceased coupled with the fact that the story appears to be shrouded in mystery especially the firing by the convict without any plausible reason appealing to the prudent mind, are the factors which lead to draw the inference that both the parties have not come forward with true story and suppress their own part in the occurrence.  Held: when such facts and circumstances in a murder case are examined and judged in the light of statutory provisions as well as principle of law enunciated by the Courts, it appears that the Courts are always in favour of life imprisonment.  Ansar Mahmood v. Manazir H. 2014 SCR 770 (D) 1999 SCMR 1937; 2007 SCR 1; 1993 P.Cr.L.J. 1633; 1998 P.Cr.L.J. 79; 2003 SCMR 531, 2013 SCR 389 and Shoukat Khan v. the State and another (Criminal Appeal No.1/2011 decided on 10.1.2013) rel.
  4. —murder case—conversion of death sentence into 14 years imprisonment—by the Shariat Court—occurrence took place due to sudden provocation on spur of moment—imposition of major penalty not safe—Shariat Court reduced sentence, rightly—After going through the statements of the eyewitnesses, it is clear that all the witnesses are unanimous on the point that the accused party had no enmity with the deceased. It also appears from the statements that the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment and there was no premeditation. When it is proved even from the statements of the eyewitnesses hat the convicts/accused had no enmity with the deceased and the occurrence took place in the result of sudden provocation, the in view of the overall circumstances of the present case, the imposition of major penalty is not safe. As in the instant case, the element of pre-meditation is missing, therefore, this aspect may be considered as mitigation. Basharat Hussain vs Ejaz & others 2018 SCR 1026 (B)
  5.  — murder — mitigating circumstances — effect of — mitigating circumstances is a fact or situation that does not justify or excuse a wrongful act or offence but that reduces the decree of culpability and thus may reduce the punishment. Habib-ur-Rehman Chughtai v. Kabir Hussain & others 2023 SCR 87 (D)
  6.  — determination of — murder — death sentence — mere factor of convict being incarcerated for a certain period does not automatically qualify as a mitigating circumstance for conversion of death sentence into lesser punishment — the Court should assess the gravity of offence and overall circumstances of the case while determining the appropriate punishment — mere incarceration duration cannot be a sole basis for reduction of sentence — argument that convict is behind bars since 2001, does not meet the threshold for mitigating the death sentence — Court has to primarily consider the nature of offence, the evidence produced and overall circumstances before reaching a decision on the appropriate punishment — Muhammad Ghazanfar v. M. Matloob & another 2023 SCR 115 (C)
  7. — murder case — question of sentence require utmost care — the same must be weighed in the golden scale and should be properly balanced to save rest of the society from the commission of crimes without being unnecessary harsh . Tanvir Ahmed Bhatti v. State & others 2023 SCR 514 (H)
  8. — section 302, APC — murder case — expectancy of life – — under celebrated principle of administration of justice (crim), the question regarding the quantum of sentence demands and requires utmost care and caution — Quantum of sentence in the case of murder is death or qisas, however, it depends upon the circumstances of each case — if the Court is satisfied that there is no mitigating circumstances, then it would be justified to impose and award the penalty of death — death sentence in a murder case is a normal penalty — the principle of expectancy of life itself is not a deciding factor in a matter of punishment. Muhammad Pervaiz & others v. State & others 2023 SCR 563 (E &F) 1996 SCR 95 & 2009 SCR 104 ref.
  9.  — murder — unproved motive — mitigation — prosecution struggled to adopt a clear motive and failed to prove the same — real cause of murder shrouded in mystery and puts a caution towards sentence — prosecution’s inability to provide concrete and credible evidence to support any of the alleged motives serves as mitigating factor for imposing lesser punishment. Ghulam Nabi & others vs Muhammad Shafique 2024 SCR 72 (B)
  10. — murder — prosecution not came forward with true story and suppressed the real facts — some portions of prosecution story shrouded in mystery — such like circumstances suggest the need for a lesser punishment. Ghulam Nabi & others vs Muhammad Shafique 2024 SCR 72 (C)
  11. — murder — unproved motive — mitigating circumstances — prosecution struggled to establish a clear motive — motive alleged not satisfactorily proved — discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness testimonies along with apparent suppression of certain facts by prosecution suggest that full truth of incident may not have been presented — such uncertainties and inconsistencies support the consideration of a lesser punishment — sentence of life imprisonment converted into sentence already undergone. Ghulam Nabi & others vs Muhammad Shafique 2024 SCR 72 (D&E)
  12. — see Imran & others vs The State & others 2024 SCR 155 (D)
error: Content is protected !!