| Case ID |
16bf5b76-a7b9-4556-a6bd-d21860dccd57 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeals Nos.235 and 236 of 1995 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 02, 2001 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 25, 2001 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan altered the sentences of the respondents from life imprisonment to death on three counts, maintaining the rest of the sentences. The Court held that both the trial and High Courts failed to provide reasons for not awarding the normal penalty of death for the premeditated, brutal triple murders committed by the respondents. The Court emphasized the mandatory requirement under Section 367(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code to record reasons when deviating from the prescribed penalty and found that the respondents did not deserve leniency, thus upholding the death sentences. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Criminal Appeals Nos.235 and 236 of 1995, the Supreme Court of Pakistan adjudicated on the issue of sentencing in cases involving premeditated and brutal murders. The case, cited as 2001 SLD 1436 = 2001 SCMR 988, revolved around the appellants, Miss NAJIBA and another, petitioning against the respondents, Ahmad Sultan alias Satttar and two others, who were convicted of triple murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. The trial court had sentenced them to life imprisonment without adjudging the death penalty, a decision that was upheld by the High Court of Balochistan.
The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the appeals, identified a critical oversight: the lower courts failed to record adequate reasons for not imposing the mandatory death penalty for the heinous crimes committed by the respondents. Under Section 367(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is imperative that courts provide justification when deviating from prescribed penalties, especially in capital offenses. The lack of such reasons was deemed a non-compliance with legal provisions, leading the Supreme Court to affirm that the death sentence was appropriate given the absence of mitigating circumstances.
The case underscored the judiciary's role in upholding deterrent punishments to prevent heinous crimes and maintain public confidence in the legal system. By revising the sentences to capital punishment, the Supreme Court reinforced the severity with which the highest court views premeditated and atrocious acts, thereby contributing to the jurisprudence on mandatory sentences in Pakistan’s legal framework. Key legal texts cited include the Penal Code (XLV of 1860) and the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), along with significant case law that established the necessity for courts to adhere strictly to sentencing guidelines, especially in cases involving multiple murders and egregious offenses.
This decision also highlighted the importance of voluntary and true confessional statements in securing convictions, which were corroborated by substantial evidence including exhumed bodies and forensic analysis. The Supreme Court’s intervention ensured that justice was served not only for the victims and their families but also reinforced the legal standards required for sentencing in capital cases. Ultimately, the alteration of the sentence to death aimed to deter similar crimes and uphold the rule of law, ensuring that severe punishments are meted out appropriately in Pakistan’s judicial system. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
SH. RIAZ AHMED,
MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL AND,
JAVED IQBAL, JJ
|
| Lawyers |
M. Aslam Chishti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants,
S.A.M. Quadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent,
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for the State
|
| Petitioners |
another,
Miss NAJIBA
|
| Respondents |
2 others,
AHMED SULTAN alias SATTAR
|
| Citations |
2001 SLD 1436,
2001 SCMR 988
|
| Other Citations |
Mosaddi Rai v. Emperor AIR 1933 Pat. 100,
Abdus Sattar v. Muhammad Anwar PLD 1974 SC 266,
Nabu v. The State PLD 1975 SC. 478,
Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Javed PLD 1976 SC 452,
Bakhshish Elahi v. The State 1977 SCMR 389,
Jetharam v. Weram 1986 SCMR 1056,
Maqbool Ahmad v. The State 1987 SCMR 1059,
Muhammad Sharif v. The State 1991 SCMR 1622,
Noor Muhammad v. The State -1999 SCMR 2722,
Muhammad Afzal v. Ghulam Asghar and others PLD 2000 SC 12,
Habibullah v. The State 1971 SCMR 341,
Abdul Majid v. The State 1980 SCMR 935,
Sheri Zaman v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1526,
Wazir Khan v. The State 1989 SCMR 446,
Muhammad Gul v. The State 1991 SCMR 942,
Arabistan v. The State 1992 SCMR 754,
Javaid Masih v. The State 1993 SCMR 1574,
Muhammad Ismail v. The State 1995 SCMR 1615,
Mst. Naseem Akhtar v. The State -1999 SCMR 1744,
Fazal Mahmood v. The State -1999 SCMR 2040,
Nasar Khan v. The State 2000 SCMR 130,
Nasreen Akhtar v. The State 2000 SCMR 1634
|
| Laws Involved |
Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
302,
34,
S.367(5)
|