IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Revision Application No.D- 77 of 2014.

Before;

Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio,

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah.

Applicant : Nawab son of Unar Khobhar, Resident of village Kundo Kobhar, Taluka Daherki, District Ghotki.

Through Mr. Shamsuddin Khobhar, advocate.

Private respondent : Mushtaq Ahmed s/o Hayat, Bycaste

Kobhar, Resident of village Jumo Khobhar, Taluka Daherki, District Ghotki.

Through Mr. Ubedullah K.Ghoto

advocate.

The State : Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi,

Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing : 28-04-2021.

Date of decision : 28-04-2021

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the private respondent with rest of the culprits in furtherance of their common intention, not only committed murder of Sujawal by causing him fire shot injuries, but caused fire shot injury to PW Jagir with intention to commit his murder and then went away by making fires at appellant Nawab and others, for that the present case was registered.

2. On due trial, co-accused Sobharo was acquitted while the private respondent for an offence punishable u/s 302 (b) PPC was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the legal heirs of the said deceased with benefit of section 382 (b) Cr.P.C by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge Mirpur Mathelo vide his judgment dated 10-10-2013.

3. The applicant has sought for enhancement of the punishment for the private respondent from life imprisonment to death, by preferring the instant Crl. Revision Application.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there was no mitigating circumstance, which could have justified learned trial Court for awarding the lesser punishment to the private respondent. By contending so, he sought for enhancement of the sentence for the private respondent from life imprisonment to death.

5. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent by rebutting the above contention, have sought for dismissal of instant Crl. Revision Application.

6. We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

7. Apparently, there was no deep rooted enmity between the parties. The motive of the incident is shrouded in mystery. The private respondent is alleged to have made single fire shot at the deceased. These factors were collectively considered by learned trial Court to be the mitigating circumstances for awarding lesser punishment to the private respondent.

8. In case of Iftikhar Hussain Vs. Israr Bashir and others (PLD 2007 SC-111), it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court at Page No.119 that;

“….The difference of punishment for Qatl-e-Amd as Qisas and Tazir provided under sections 302(a) and 302(b), P.P.C, respectively is that in a case of Qisas, Court has no discretion in the matter of sentence whereas in case of Tazir Court may award either of the sentence provided under section 302(b), P.P.C, and exercise of this direction in the case of sentence of Tazir would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no cavil to the proposition that an offender is absolved from sentence of death by way of Qisas if he is minor at the time of occurrence but in a case in which Qisas is not enforceable, the Court in a case of Qatl-e-Amd, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, award the offender the punishment of death or imprisonment for life by way of Tazir. The proposition has also been discussed in Ghulam Murtaza v. State 2004 SCMR-04, Faqirullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman 1999 SCMR-2203, Muhammad Akram v. State 2003 SCMR-885 and Abdus Salam v. State 2000 SCMR-338”.

8. In view of above, the instant Crl. Revision Application fails and it was dismissed accordingly by way of short order dated 28-04-2021 and above are the reasons for the same.

Judge

Judge

Nasim/P.A