GHULAM RASOOL vs State S — 2024 SCMR 2048 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

GHULAM RASOOL VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Re-appraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---Death sentence reduced to imprisonment of life---[Per Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J. [Majority view]: It could not be said with certainty that out of all the four assailants, how many shots were fired and whose fire shot had resulted into causing death of the deceased---As far as the recovery of a crime weapon was concerned, it was the case of the prosecution that the appellant fired shots with a rifle, however, there was a divergent version on the record qua the recovery of gun 12 bore and a pistol instead of gun 12 bore and that too had not been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, hence the recovery of crime weapon was inconsequential---Occurrence had taken place all of a sudden without there being any proof of premeditation---It was a free fight, without any motive---All the accused made firing upon the deceased, but it was not established that the appellant alone was responsible for the commission of the murder or the injury caused due to his firing was fatal---Appellant remained in custody w.e.f. May 2006 till date, out of which, he was incarcerated in death cell w.e.f. 2013, almost for more than eleven years, for no fault of his own---Section 302(b), P.P.C. provides a punishment for death or imprisonment for life as Taazir---Appellant had served almost an imprisonment for life, including eleven years detention in death cell---Under such circumstances, executing his death sentence at present stage would be harsh, especially, when there were mitigating circumstances as well---Appeal was dismissed; the conviction awarded to the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. on two counts was maintained, however, the sentence of death awarded to the appellant was altered to that of imprisonment for life on two counts]---[Per Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. [Minority view]: All eye-witnesses were resident of the same area---One of the deceased, was the maternal uncle of both the complainant and an eye-witness, making their presence at the place of occurrence neither unnatural nor improbable---Appellant was named in the FIR with specific role of causing successive firearm injuries on the deceased persons---Ocular account furnished by the eye-witnesses found full corroboration by the medical evidence---Specific injuries attributed to the appellant by the eye-witnesses found corroboration from the post-mortem report---Specific injuries attributed to the appellant were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death---Motive was proved by the witnesses as revealed by their testimonies---Given the evidence and facts of the case, it was impossible, by any stretch of the imagination, to consider the incident as a mere spontaneous fight or an act of unpremeditated murder---Case of acquitted co-accused was fundamentally distinct from that of the appellant, thus, his acquittal held no bearing on the appellant's case---Even if recovery of crime weapon was excluded there was sufficient incriminating material against the appellant in the form of testimony of eye-witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence and motive---Appellant committed murders in a particularly brutal and merciless manner, killing two individuals who were actively pursuing a case against the appellant for a previous murder---Given the gravity of the offence and the appellant's conduct, he was not entitled to any leniency in sentencing---Reducing the punishment based on the long trial or the time the appellant spent in custody did not change the severity of the crime---Appellant was a habitual criminal who committed murder of the innocent persons---Therefore, reducing his sentence would undermine the justice deserved by the victims and the severity of the crime committed---Appeal was dismissed and death penalty imposed by the High Court was maintained]

GHULAM RASOOL vs State S — 2024 SCMR 2048 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR