SHC dismisses murder convict’s appeal against life imprisonment

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed the appeal of a convict against life imprisonment sentence in a murder case.

Appellant Mohammad Usman was sentenced to life imprisonment by a sessions court for committing murder of his friend Mohammad Irfan on February 2, 2012, due to a monetary dispute.

According to the prosecution, the appellant had called Irfan at his house situated in the Taimoria area in Federal B Area, and later killed him.

A counsel for the appellant submitted that no material was brought on record by the prosecution to prove that the motive behind the murder was a dispute over payment of an investment committee amount.

The counsel submitted that the appellant had indeed caused the death of the deceased, but sought to contend that the facts and the circumstances of the case brought it within the parameters of the Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code, which did not prescribe a minimum punishment and the maximum punishment under that provision was twenty five years. He also contended that the sentence awarded to the appellant merited reduction.

He submitted that there was no element of premeditation on the part of the appellant as the crime had been committed during a sudden fight and as a consequence of grave and sudden provocation constituted by the deceased forcing himself upon the appellant’s wife.

The additional prosecutor general and complainant’s counsel defended the trial court judgment and submitted that it was apparent from the record that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased with premeditation, without any grave and sudden provocation. They submitted that the defence plea of provocation was patently misconceived and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

A single bench of the SHC headed by Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed, after hearing the arguments and perusal of the evidence of the case, observed that the confessional statement of the appellant reflected that he claimed to have been incensed when told by his wife that the deceased had tried to commit Zina with her while it is evident that he did not commit the offence in the heat of that moment.

The bench observed that on the contrary, it transpired that the appellant overtly maintained cordial relations with the deceased even after he claimed to have been informed of such alleged advances and then committed the murder with premeditation after admittedly having called the deceased to his residence for that purpose.

The high court observed that it was palpable that the murder of the deceased was not committed at the spur of the moment due to a circumstance that could be considered as giving rise to sudden provocation or a sudden fight.

The SHC observed that the appellant on the contrary formed the intention of killing the deceased and after having armed himself with a knife had called the deceased to his house with the intention of perpetrating the act, then proceeding to inflict as many as eight separate knife wounds, as recorded in the medical report.

The SHC observed that the grounds advanced in support of the appeal were completely devoid of substance and the impugned judgment, being well reasoned on the basis of the evidence, did not warrant any interference, and dismissed the appeal.