2025 M L D 227
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar CJ and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, J
SHER MUHAMMAD ---Appellant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 75 and Murder Reference No. 12 of 2023, decided on 13th August,
2024.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337 -D---Qatl -i-amd, attempt to commit qatl -i-amd, jaifah ---
Appreciation of evidence ---Ocular account supported by medical evidence ---Accused was
charged for committing murder of his spouse and two daughters and also made an attempt to take the life of his third daughter ---Ocular account furnished by daughter of the
appellant, who sustained firearm injuries in the occurrence, specifically held the appellant responsible for murdering her mother, sisters and firing at her brother in the house at 12:00 pm (noon) ---According to said witness, on 02.04.2022 at 12:00 pm, while womenfolk were
indulged in altercation, his father came home, closed the door, brought the Kalashnikov and
fired at their deceased mother ---Said witness stated that in order to save her mother, she laid
down on her, but due to firing, her mother, sisters and herself received firearm injuries, whereby her deceased mother and sister succumbed on the spot, whereas her deceased sister died on her way to hospital ---Injured witness further testified that her brother was
also fired at, but she saved his life by embracing him in her arms ---Said witness received
firearm injuries, which were confirmed by the Medico -Legal Certificate ---Injuries
sustained by said witness had also not been denied by the defence ---Said witness being
daughter of the appellant neither had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant being her father nor the defence had come up with any defence of false implication due to ulterior motives ---Despite lengthy cross -examination, testimony of said witness could not be
shaken by the defence ---Statement of said witness by all means inspired confidence and
was truthful ---Complainant was the brother of deceased, however he was not the eye -
witness of the occurrence ---According to complainant, appellant was habitual of torturing
her deceased sister ---Other eye -witness affirmed the testimony of complainant regarding
tyranny by the appellant upon his deceased wife and children ---Said witness testified that
on 02.04.2022 at about 12:00 pm, he along with other witness went to meet deceased and found door of the house closed from inside, where they heard clamours ---Said witness
stated that they scaled the wall and saw the appellant having Kalashnikov in his hand, making fires upon the deceased and his two daughters, who were sitting inside the room and when injured tried to save her brother, she also received firearm injuries ---
Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant, however due to mitigating circumstances the sentence of capital punishment awarded to the appellant was converted into life imprisonment ---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances,
with said modification in sentence.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337- D---Qatl -i-amd, attempt to commit qatl- i-amd, jaifah ---
Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in ---Mitigating circumstances ---No
premeditation to commit murders ---Accused was charged for committing murder of his
spouse and two daughters and also made an attempt to take the life of his third daughter -
--Solitary statement of injured witness was confidence inspiring and truthful, which was
sufficient enough to conclude that appellant had committed murder of deceased persons and caused injuries to said witness ---Admittedly, there was no question of any
misidentity or any reason of false implication by injured witness ---However, question
arose that as to whether the incident occurred abruptly without premeditation due to rage or the occurrence took place accidentally without any intention to commit murder of the
deceased persons ---Critical analysis of the testimony of injured witness showed no
premeditation on the part of the appellant to commit murder of his wife and children---
Circumstances of the instant case pointed towards the fact that due to altercation between the appellant's first and second wife the instant occurrence took place at the spur of the moment without any previous motive or premeditation, making case of the
appellant one of mitigating circumstances ---Thus, the sentence of capital punishment
awarded to the appellant was converted into life imprisonment ---Appeal was dismissed,
in circumstances, with said modification in sentence.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337- D---Qanun- e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129(g) ---Qatl -i-amd,
attempt to commit qatl -i-amd, jaifah ---Appreciation of evidence--- Withholding material
witness ---Effect ---Sentence, reduction in ---Accused was charged for committing murder
of his spouse and two daughters and also made an attempt to take the life of his third
daughter ---Record showed that injured witness in her deposition stated that the appellant
made fire upon her brother, who was saved by her ---To affirm such fact, the star witness
could have been her brother, but the prosecution had withheld his testimony by not producing him, which offended Art.129(g) of the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Thus,
the sentence of capital punishment awarded to the appellant was converted into life imprisonment---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances, with said modification in sentence.
Lal Khan v. The State 2006 SCMR 1846; Tahir Khan v. State 2011 SCMR 646 and
Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan PLD 2022 SC 21 rel.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337- D---Qatl -i-amd, attempt to commit qatl- i-amd, jaifah ---
Appreciation of evidence ---Sentence, reduction in ---Accused was charged for
committing murder of his spouse and two daughters and also made an attempt to take the life of his third daughter ---Record showed that there was nothing on record to establish
that the appellant had committed the murder of his family members in cold blood with premeditation, henceforth, the capital punishment was unwarranted for the case being one of mitigating circumstances ---Moreso, the appellant and his family had already
suffered a lot, thus the appellant deserved leniency---Thus, the sentence of capital punishment awarded to the appellant was converted into life imprisonment ---Appeal was
dismissed, in circumstances, with said modification in sentence.
Ghaffar Ali v. The State 2021 SCMR 354; Hikmat Shah v. Bakhtiar Khan 2018 YLR
1168 and Sajjan v. The State 2023 YLR 461 rel.
Barrister Zahoor Hassan Jamote for Appellants (in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 75 of
2023).
Abdul Ghani Sherani for the Complainant (in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 75 of 2023).
Yahya Baloch, Additional Prosecutor General ("APG") for the State (in Criminal Jail
Appeal No. 75 of 2023).
Yahya Baloch, APG for the State (in Murder Reference No. 12 of 2023).
Barrister Zahoor Hassan Jamote for Respondents (in Murder Reference No. 12 of
2023).
Date of hearing: 29th July, 2024.
JUDGMENT
SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J .---The captioned Criminal Jail Appeal and
Murder Reference have been brought before us to set at naught the judgment dated 28th September, 2023 ("impugned judgment") rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Zhob ("Trial
Court") arising out of an FIR bearing No.43 of 2022 (Ex.P/12- A) registered with Police
Station, Zhob, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following
terms;
"As a consequence, the accused Sher Muhammad son of Surat Khan is hereby convicted under Section 302(b), P.P.C for taking the lives of his spouse Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nasro and his daughters Mst. Gulsima and Mst. Bakht Nasiba. For that matter, he is sentenced to death on three (3) counts. He be hanged by the nick till he is dead. The accused Sher Muhammad is also liable to pay compensation under the provisions of Section 544- A, Cr.P.C to the tune of Rupees one million to the legal
heirs of the victims named above. In case of default, he shall undergo S.I for a period of six (6) months. The accused Sher Muhammad is also convicted under Section 324, P.P.C for making an attempt to take the life of his daughter Mst. Maryam Bibi. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer R.I for a period of ten (10) years with a direction to pay fine to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ - (Rupees fifty thousand). In case of
default thereof, the accused Sher Muhammad shall further undergo S.I for a period of six (06) months. He is further convicted under Section 337- D, P.P.C for causing
injury to his daughter Mst. Maryam Bibi. For that matter, he is sentenced to suffer R.I for a period of ten (10) years and to pay Arsh equivalent to the value of one -third of
the Diyat prescribed for the year 2021- 22. The accused Sher Muhammad shall be
detained in Jail till the realization of the said amount. All the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently. However, the benefit of Section 382- B, Cr:P.C
is extended in favour of the accused Sher Muhammad."
2. Briefly stated, complainant Akthar Shah (PW -1) got lodged the crime report
(Ex.P/12- A) on the basis of an application (Ex.P/1- A), averring therein that his sister Mst.
Noor Bibi alias Nasro (deceased) was married to Sher Muhammad (appellant), who always
used to mistreat her and on 02.04.2022, at about 12:00 pm, the appellant with his
Kalashnikov made firing upon his sister Noor Bibi alias Nasro (deceased) and his nieces Mst.
Gulsima (deceased), Mst. Bakht Nasiba (deceased) and Mst. Maryam Bibi (PW- 2), whereby
his sister Noor Bibi alias Nasro and niece Mst. Gulsima succumbed on the spot, whereas his other two nieces Mst. Bakht Nasiba (deceased) and Maryam Bibi (PW- 2) sustained firearm
injuries, whereafter the appellant with his second wife made his escape good from the spot, however on the way to hospital, injured Bakht Nasiba also succumbed.
3. After the occurrence and registration of FIR (Ex.P/12 -A), Zulfiqar Ali IP
Investigation Officer ("IO") (PW -12) was entrusted with the investigation, who on arrival at
the Civil Hospital, Zhob found the dead bodies of deceased Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nasro and Mst. Gulsima. He prepared inquest reports of deceased persons (Ex.P/12- B) and (Ex.P/12- C)
respectively, recorded statements of eye- witnesses under section 161 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 ("Cr.P.C."), took into possession bloodstained clothes of deceased Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nasro, Mst. Gulsima, Bakht Nasiba and injured Mst. Maryam Bibi (PW -
2) handed over by duty doctor, secured through recovery memos. (Ex.P/6- A), (Ex.P/6- B),
(Ex.P/6 -C) and (Ex.P/7 -A), whereafter went to the crime scene, wherefrom he secured blood
through pieces of cotton vide recovery memo. (Ex.P/8- A), seven shells of SMG and two
empty fired bullets through recovery memo. (Ex.P/8- B), prepared rough sketch (Ex.P/12- D)
and inquest report of deceased Bakht Nasiba (Ex.P/12- E).
On 07.04.2022, the appellant was arrested and Kalashnikov along with a magazine
and five live rounds were recovered from him through recovery memo. (Ex.P/9 -A), following
preparation of site plan (Ex.P/12- G), complete challan (Ex.P/12- J) and FSL reports (Ex.P/12-
H) and (Ex.P/12- I) respectively.
4. On conclusion of the investigation, the appellant was put on trial, whereafter denial of
the indictment, the prosecution in order to drive home the charge produced as many as twelve (12) witnesses and at the end of the prosecution side, the appellant was examined under section 342 of Cr.P.C. He neither opted to record his statement on oath nor produced any defence, henceforth on conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant in the terms mentioned in the para supra.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the testimony of Maryam
Bibi (PW -2) is contradictory in nature, which does not co- inside with the confessional
statement, thus no reliance can be placed thereon. Added further that the confessional
statement of the appellant is inadmissible and the recovery of crime weapon as well as FSL
report procured thereof has only been foisted in order to strengthen the prosecution case, more particularly, when the crime empties along with crime weapon have jointly been sent for FSL. He further maintained that prosecution has failed to produce any independent witness from the vicinity, but the Trial Court has failed to consider such material facts of
case, while rendering the impugned judgment, thus the appellant merits to be acquitted.
Conversely, learned APG and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently
rebutted the assertions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and maintained that the
prosecution has proved the case to the hilt against the appellant. Argued further that the prosecution has successfully proved the recovery of kalashnikov from the possession of the appellant by procuring positive FSL report thereof. Maintained further that the appellant has admitted the guilt of his crime in the confessional statement, which establishes the indictment through unbroken chain of events, creating no doubt in mind that the appellant has committed ruthless murder of his family members. Further stated that the Trial Court has found the appellant guilty on the basis of proper appraisal of the evidence, which does not call for interference, thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard. Record pondered upon with the able assistance of learned counsel for the
adversial parties. The case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the ocular account furnished by injured eye -witness Mst. Maryam Bibi (PW -2), circumstantial evidence of complainant
Akthar Shah (PW -1), Naqeebullah (PW -3), confessional statement of appellant (Ex.P/11- A),
recorded by Judicial Magistrate ("JM") Ihtaram -ul-Haq (PW -11) (discarded by the Trial
Court), medical evidence and recovery of kalashnikov with positive FSL report (Ex.P/12- I).
The unnatural death of the deceased persons by kalashnikov has not been denied by the
appellant. Dr. Zain- ud-Din (PW -05) on 02.04.2022 examined the dead bodies of deceased
Mst. Noor Bibi, Bakht Nasiba and injured Maryam Bibi (PW -2), whereof he issued Medico
Legal Certificates ("MLCs") (Ex.P/5 -A), (Ex.P/5 -B), (Ex.P/5 -C) and (Ex.P/5 -D)
respectively, wherein he observed as infra;
"Mst. Maryam Bibi.
A lady by name of Maryam brought to casualty of DHQ Hospital, Zhob, with history of firearm injuries.
On examination: Patient was semi unconscious, pulse 96/Mint regular and BP 70/60.
There was a wound of firearm entrance left subcostaly at level of Mid Axillary line,
size 1x ½" deep.
A wound of firearm exit on anterior abdominal wall above the umbilicus size 3x3 deep, with profuse bleeding
Note: Passed canola, maintain IIV line, take blood for grouping and cross matching and referred patient to CMH Zhob for expert management.
Object used Firearm.
Duration of injuries is Fresh
Mst. Noor Bibi.
A dead body were brought to casualty DHQ Hospital, Zhob.
On examination:
There were no pulse, BP and Heart rounds, pupils were fully dilated, no response to light.
On External Examination: Following injuries noted:
A) Wounds of Entrance: 1. A wound of firearm at the level of anterior axillary line sub-costaly size 1x ½".
2. A wound of firearm on (R) Hypocondrium at level of mid axillary line size Ix ½" deep.
3. A wound of entrance at (L) 7th intercostal space at level of posterior axillary line.
4. A wound entrance of left buttock.
B) Wounds of exit: (1). A wound of exit (L) femoral area near left pubic tuble size
3"x2" deep.
(2) A wound of exit (L) upper thigh Anteriorly size 2x2 deep.
(3) A wound of exit (L) iliac fossal at level of (L) anterior iliac crest.
Object used Firearm.
Duration of injuries Fresh.
Cause of death: Damage of vital organs and major vessal lead to death.
Mst. Bakht Nasiba.
A lady Bakht Nasiba Bibi was brought to casualty of DHQ Hospital, Zhob.
On examination: There were firearm wounds of entrance on (L) posterior chest at the level of mid of medical border of left scapula sixe 1 ½"x2" deep.
A wound of exit on (L) sub clavicular region size 3½" x 2" deep involved major vessel, perfused bleeding from wound at the time of examination.
Note: Patient referred to CMH Zhob for expert management.
According to Report of CMH Zhob Surgeon (copy enclosed), following injuries noted:
(1) Gunshot wound on (L) sub- clavicular region with lower aspect of neck and
fracture and dislocation of the left glevinoid fossa and head of humerus.
Cause of death: Excessive bleeding lead to irreversible shock and cardio pulmonary arrest, and expired on 10:20 pm on 02.04.2022"
On the same day, the dead body of deceased Mst. Gulsima was examined by Dr.
Shahbaz Khan (PW- 10), who issued MLC (Ex.P/10- A), wherein he observed the following
injuries:
"On external examination, we observed the following injuries in the presence of two staff female nurses namely Bulqees and Aysha
1 Entrance wound was on right lateral side of neck. Exit wound was on left side below clavicle.
2 Entrance wound was on right lotero- posterior surface of lumber region. Exit wound
was on liace fossa with lacerated region.
3 Entrance wound was on posterior chest wall. Exit wound on left lumber region with lacerated margin.
Duration of wounds Fresh.
Object used Gunshot.
Cause of death Due to massive bleeding from vital organs."
Moreso, the forensic report (Ex.P/12 -H) of bloodstained clothes of deceased persons
has also confirmed the death of the deceased persons with firearms.
7. The ocular account furnished by daughter of the appellant Maryam Bibi (PW -2), who
sustained firearm injuries in the occurrence, specifically held the appellant responsible for murdering her mother deceased Mst.Noor Bibi alias Nasro, sisters Mst. Gulsima, Bakht Nasiba and firing at her brother Khalid in the house at 12:00 pm (noon). According to her, on 02.04.2022 at 12:00 pm, while womenfolk were indulged in altercation, his father came home, closed the door, brought the kalashnikov and fired at their de ceased mother. She also
stated that in order to safe her mother, she laid down on her, but due to firing, her mother,
sisters and herself received firearm injuries, whereby her deceased mother Mst. Noor Bibi
alias Nasro and sister Mst. Gulsima succumbed on the spot, whereas her deceased sister Bakht Nasiba died on her way to hospital. She further testified that her brother Khalid was also fired at, but she saved his life by embracing him in her arms. She received firearm injuries, which were confirmed by the MLC (Ex.P/5- A), issued by Dr. Zain -ud-Din (PW -05).
The injuries sustained by her have also not been denied by the defence. Maryam Bibi (PW -
2), being daughter of the appellant neither has any reason to falsely implicate the appellant being her father nor the defence has come up with any defence of false implication on ulterior motives. Despite length cross -examination, her testimony could not be shaken by the
defence. Her statement by all means inspires confidence and truthful.
Complainant Akthar Shah (PW -1) is the brother of deceased Mst. Noor Bibi alias
Nasro. He is not the eye -witness of the occurrence. According to him, appellant was habitual
of torturing her deceased sister. Naqeebullah (PW- 3) affirmed the testimony of complainant
(PW -1) regarding tyranny by the appellant upon his deceased wife and children. He testified
that on 02.04.2022 at about 12:00 pm, he along with Abdul Haq (PW -4) went to meet
deceased Nasro Bibi and found door of the house closed from inside, where they heard clamours. He further stated that they scaled the wall and saw the appellant having
kalashnikov in his hand, making fire upon the deceased Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nasro, Mst.
Gulsima and Bakht Nasiba, who were sitting inside the room and when Maryam Bibi (PW -2)
tried to save her brother, she also received firearm injuries.
Abdul Haq (PW -4) also came up with a similar account. The testimony of
Naqeebullah (PW- 3) and Abdul Haq (PW -4) is albeit in line with the testimony of Maryam
Bibi (PW -2), but they have failed to justify their presence. Their conduct of doing nothing
and leaving the injured persons at home and not helping them for medical treatment seems absurd. Their presence in the hospital is also not established, thus it is unsafe to rely upon their testimonies. The Trial Court had also rightly disbelieved Naqeebullah (PW -3) and
Abdul Haq (PW -4), while rendering the impugned judgment.
8. Adverting to the confessional statement of appellant (Ex.P/11- A), it may be observed
that the Trial Court has discarded and disbelieved the confessional statement of the appellant on the ground that JM (PW -11) has used a printed form of questionnaire, which is not
approved in view of the dictum lay down in the case of "Muhammad Azhar Hussain v. The Sate" (PLD 2019 SC 595).
9. Be that as it may, the appellant in his confessional statement has exonerated himself
by stating that he only intended to frighten the deceased persons, but during scuffle the Kalashnikov triggered, which accidently culminated into death of his wife and daughters. After scanning the confessional statement of the appellant, we have come to the conclusion that it is an exculpatory statement, which is inadmissible, thus does not incriminate the appellant.
10. The recovery of kalashnikov along with a magazine and five live rounds from the
possession of the appellant has albeit been substantiated by the prosecution, secured through recover memo. (Ex.P/9 -A), whereof positive Forensic Science Laboratory, Crime Branch,
Quetta ("FSL, Quetta") report (Ex.P/12- I) was received, but it is of no help to the case of
prosecution as it offends the dicta expounded by the apex court in the cases of "Mushtaq v. The State" (PLD 2008 SC 1) and "Ali Sher v. The State" (2008 SCMR 707). The kalashnikov being the crime weapon along with a magazine and five live rounds were recovered from the appellant on 07.04.2022 through recovery memo. (Ex.P/9- A), but the same were received in
the office of FSL, Quetta on 12.04.2022 with a delay of five (5) days, whereof no plausible explanation has been offered, diminishing the entire evidentiary value of recovery of kalashnikov and FSL report (Ex.P/12- I), more particularly, when empties secured form the
crime scene and alleged crime weapon were sent together, thus no explicit reliance can be placed on such unworthy piece of evidence.
11. The solitary statement of Maryam Bibi (PW -2) is confidence inspiring and truthful,
which is sufficient enough to conclude that appellant Sher Muhammad has committed murder of deceased Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nasro, Mst. Gulsima, Bakht Nasiba and caused injuries to Maryam Bibi (PW -2). Admittedly, there is no question of any misidentity or any
reason of false implication by Maryam Bibi (PW- 2). However, question erupts that as to
whether the incident occurred abruptly without premeditation due to rage or the occurrence
took place accidently without any intention to commit murder of the deceased persons.
12. Critical analysis of the testimony of Maryam Bibi (PW -2) shows no premeditation on
the part of the appellant to commit murder of his wife and children. The circumstances of the instant case point towards the fact that due to altercation between the appellant's first and second wife the instant unfortunate occurrence took place at the spur of the moment without any previous motive or premeditation, making case of the appellant of mitigating circumstances.
We are conscious of the fact that Maryam Bibi (PW- 2) in her deposition stated that
the appellant made fire upon her brother Khalid, who was saved by her, which we have considered and analyzed deeply. To affirm such fact, the star witness could have been her brother Khalid, but the prosecution has withheld his testimony by not producing him, which offends Article 129(g) of the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ("Order of 1984"). The apex
court in the case of "Lal Khan v. The State" (2006 SCMR 1846) held that had such witness been produced before the court, he would have not supported the prosecution version. According to the illustrations highlighted for resonating the presumption, illustration (g) of Article 129(g) of Order of 1984 is quite relevant, which contemplates that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be un- favourable to the person who
withholds it. The view expounded in the Lal Khan's case supra was reiterated and endorsed in the cases of "Tahir Khan v. State" (2011 SCMR 646) and "Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan" (PLD 2022 SC 21).
13. In view of the above discussion, we believe that there is nothing on record to establish
that the appellant has committed the murder of his family members in a cold blood with premeditation, henceforth, the capital punishment is unwarranted for the case being one of mitigating circumstances, thus the impugned judgment requires to be meddled with. Moreso,
the appellant and his family have already suffered a lot, thus the appellant deserves leniency.
In this regard, reliance is placed upon the cases of "Ghaffar Ali v. The State" (2021 SCMR
354), "Hikmat Shah v. Bakhtiar Khan" (2018 YLR 1168) and "Sajjan v. The State" (2023 YLR 461). For ease of reference, Para No.6 of Ghaffar Ali's case supra is facsimile hereunder;
"6. We have observed that High Court mentioned in the judgment that complainant and the witnesses had made improvement in order to establish the motive and extended the benefit of this to the petitioner by awarding him the lesser sentence but we observe that the witnesses had not made any improvement in their examination in chief and the detail of motive was brought on record during cross -examination and in
such manner the same cannot be considered as improvement because in the FIR it is mention that a quarrel took place between the petitioner and Tehseen Ullah deceased and he being outraged started firing with Kalashnikov resulting into the death of three persons and injury to one. The stance of both the witnesses remained the same but during cross -examination they disclosed that as wife of the petitioner was not invited
hence a quarrel took place. Although this was not a valid reason for mitigation of the sentence but we observe that occurrence took place suddenly at the spur of the moment after a quarrel between complainant an Aamir and petitioner fired indiscriminately. This could be a ground for mitigation and the High Court rightly extended such benefit to the petitioner by altering the sentence of death on three counts to imprisonment for life on three counts."
[Emphasize added]
Likewise, the apex court in the case titled as "Muhammad Yasin v. The State" (2024
SCMR 128), endorsed the view ibid as infra;
"10. It is a well- settled proposition of the law that in the absence of premeditation to
commit murder where motive is not proved by the prosecution, the same may be
considered as the mitigating factor in order to reduce the quantum of sentence in cases involving the capital punishment. In Iftikhar Mehmood and another v. Qaiser Iftikhar and others (2011 SCMR 1165), this Court has held as:
[6]. We agree with the proposition that motive is not sine qua non for the proof of commission of the crime and at time motive is not known to any other person other
than the deceased or the accused person which never surfaced on the record.
However, it cannot be denied that motive is always very relevant to determine the quantum of sentence that might be awarded to a person against whom charge of murder is proved."
14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed, however, the impugned judgment
dated 28.09.2023 is modified, and in consequence thereof, the sentence awarded to the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. of capital punishment is converted into life imprisonment, whereas the rest of the sentences shall remain intact with benefit of section 382- B of Cr.P.C.
Corollary, Murder Reference No.12 of 2023 sent by the Trial Court for confirmation
of the capital punishment is answered in negative.
JK/115/Bal. Sentence altered.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.