| Case ID |
00cd11f3-5696-4851-9358-5f59f8c8a63c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 706-P of 2011 |
| Decision Date |
May 15, 2014 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
In the case of Qasim versus The STATE, the Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under sections 302(b), 304, 308, and 310 of the Penal Code, and sections 164, 342, 265-C, 265-E, and 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Originally sentenced to death on two counts for the murders of his wife Mst. Naseem and brother Naveed, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence, including ocular testimonies and circumstantial evidence, which substantiated the prosecution's claims despite the accused's initial plea of guilt and subsequent retraction. Acknowledging the mitigating factors presented, such as Qasim's minor daughter and the compounded nature of the crime by the complainant, the court exercised judicial discretion to modify the sentence. The death penalty was deemed excessively harsh given the circumstances, leading to its reduction to life imprisonment. Additionally, compensation was mandated in favor of the victims' legal representatives. This balanced approach ensured that justice was served while considering the humanitarian aspects of the case. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Qasim versus The STATE, adjudicated by the Peshawar High Court on May 15, 2014, the appellant, Qasim Khan, faced grave charges under multiple sections of the Penal Code (XLV of 1860) including 302(b) for murder, 304 for culpable homicide, and 308 & 310 for variations of unlawful killing. The case revolved around the tragic incidents where Qasim was accused of murdering his brother Naveed and wife Mst. Naseem with a firearm, an act termed as 'Qatl-i-Amd'. Initially pleading guilty, Qasim retracted his confession during the trial, leading to a complex legal battle that scrutinized the validity and weight of confessions in cases demanding severe penalties such as the death sentence.
The prosecution presented compelling evidence, comprising ocular testimonies from primary witnesses Mumtaz Khan and Mst. Roshan, alongside corroborative circumstantial evidence collected by Investigating Officer Jamil Khan. Medical reports from Dr. Muhammad Ali and Dr. Farkhanda confirmed the fatal gunshot wounds inflicted on the victims, strengthening the case against Qasim. Despite the initial plea of guilt, Qasim's later denial necessitated a thorough reevaluation of his culpability, as per the guidelines under the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898).
Legal arguments ensued with Qasim's defense advocating for the applicability of Section 308, P.P.C., citing mitigating circumstances such as his minor daughter's welfare and familial conflicts. The defense highlighted the emotional and social repercussions of enforcing a death sentence on Qasim, emphasizing the need for compassion in sentencing. Conversely, the prosecution countered by asserting the strength of their evidence and the improbability of a father falsely accusing his son without any motive, given the familial bonds and absence of conflicting interests.
Presiding judges Qaiser Rasheed Khan and Abdullah Khan Chamkani meticulously deliberated on the merits of the case, weighing the severity of the crimes against the humanitarian factors presented. The court acknowledged the legal precedence that mandates recording evidence beyond a mere plea of guilt in cases warranting life or death penalties. This principle ensured that the conviction was not solely based on Qasim's initial admission but was substantiated by independent corroborative evidence and eyewitness accounts.
Ultimately, recognizing the depth of the evidence and the public interest in upholding justice, the court affirmed Qasim's conviction under the relevant sections of the Penal and Criminal Procedure Codes. However, exercising judicial discretion, the court modified the sentence from the sought-after death penalty to life imprisonment, considering the appellant's personal circumstances and the societal implications of his execution. Additionally, financial compensation was directed towards the victims' legal representatives under Section 544-A, C.P.C., ensuring restitution for the grievous losses incurred.
This case underscores the delicate balance courts must maintain between delivering strict justice and exercising mercy, especially in cases laden with emotional and societal ramifications. The decision to reduce the punishment reflects a nuanced understanding of the various facets that influence legal outcomes, including the psychological state of the accused, societal values, and the overarching goal of the judiciary to foster a fair and humane legal system. Moreover, the meticulous documentation and presentation of evidence in this case highlight the critical role of comprehensive legal procedures in safeguarding the rights of both the accused and the victims, ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Qasim,
The STATE,
Mumtaz Khan,
Mst. Naseem,
Naveed,
Mah Noor
|
| Judges |
QAISER RASHEED KHAN,
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI
|
| Lawyers |
Ishtiaq Ibrahim,
Muhammad Sohail, A.A.G.,
Sar Muhammad Khattak
|
| Petitioners |
Qasim
|
| Respondents |
The STATE,
another
|
| Citations |
2015 SLD 2104,
2015 YLR 1448
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Arms Ordinance
|
| Sections |
304,
302(b),
342,
308,
164,
374,
310,
265-C,
265-E,
382-B,
544-A,
13
|