Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302, 324, 380 & 411- Converted the death sentence into life imprisonment, maintaining the fines and other punishment- The evidence that has come on the record was sufficient to lead both the courts below to reach the conclusion that it was the appellant who had committed murder. In view of what has been discussed above, charge against the appellant has been proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. This appeal having no merit is thus dismissed. Muhammad Saleem VS The State, [4 LM (SC) 139]
Section 302(b)- Dying declaration- On the basis of a dying declaration the trial court for an offence under section 302(b), PPC and was sentenced to death and to pay compensation but on appeal his sentence of death was reduced by the High Court to imprisonment for life.
A dying declaration is an exception to the hearsay rule and, thus, the same is to be scrutinized with due care and caution, particularly in the backdrop of the observations made by different Courts about veracity of a dying declaration in the Province of the Punjab and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Bakhshish Singh alias Bakhshi and others v. Emperor (AIR 1925 Lahore 549), Tawaib Khan and another v. The State (PLD 1970 SC 13) and Usman Shah and others v. The State (1969 P.Cr.L.J. 317).
The prosecution had failed to prove its case against Riyat Khan appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Respondent No. 1 namely Riyat Khan has been acquitted by this Court today upon acceptance of his Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 2010...... Muhammad Ameer -VS- Riyat Khan, [1 LM (SC) 653]
Section 302(c)- Murder- The appellant was convicted on two counts of an offence under section 302(b), PPC and was sentenced to death on each count and to pay compensation. The appellant challenged his convictions and sentences before the High Court through an appeal which was dismissed to the extent of his convictions on both the counts of the charge under section 302(b), PPC but the same was partly allowed to the extent of his sentences of death which were reduced by the High Court to imprisonment for life on each count.
This appeal is partly allowed, the convictions and sentences of the appellant are set aside and they are substituted by his conviction on two counts of an offence under section 302(c), PPC with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for twenty (20) years on each count and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the heirs of each deceased by way of compensation under section 544- A, Cr.P.C. or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months on each count. The sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellant shall run concurrently to each other and the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be extended to him.... Muhammad Qasim =VS=The State, [6 LM (SC) 164]
Section 376(1)- The petitioner's conviction under section 376(1) of PPC is maintained, consequently, the petitioner's petition for leave to appeal to such extent is dismissed. However, as regards the petitioner's sentence for the alternate punishment prescribed under section 376(1) PPC when the crime was committed the law prescribed that such sentence, 'shall not be less than ten years or more than twenty-five years', but the learned Judges of the High Court had sentenced him to imprisonment for life, which alternate punishment was subsequently enhanced pursuant to the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences Relating to Rape) Act, 2016. If the correct law was applied the learned Judges of the High Court may have been persuaded to pass a lesser sentence. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the petitioner under section 376(1) PPC, before the section was amended. ...Farooq Ahmad -VS- The State, [9 LM (SC) 40]
Sections 460, 396 & 302(b) r/w S.34- Dacoity The prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. These appeals are, therefore, allowed, the convictions and sentences of Azhar Mehmood, Muhammad Altaf, Azam Sher and Asad Ali appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to them. They shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. Azhar Mehmood -VS- The State, [3 LM (SC) 109]
