GHULAM RASOOL vs State S — 2025 SCMR 74 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---Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---Death sentence reduced to imprisonment of life---Principle of life expectancy, applicability of---[Per Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J. [Majority view]: FIR was lodged after a considerable delay without any explanation---It was not clear that out of the four shots fired by the appellant (convict), how many bullets hit the deceased---Similarly, it was also not explained that how many bullets were fired by each of the three accused and how many of them had hit the deceased---Admittedly, no empty was recovered from the place of the occurrence, therefore, in the given circumstances, it could not be said with certainty that out of all the four assailants, whose fire shots resulted into fatal injury(s), causing death of the deceased---Occurrence had taken place all of a sudden without there being any proof of premeditation---It was a free fight, without proof of the motive alleged in the FIR---One of the co-accused, had already been acquitted by the Trial Court on the same set of evidence---Appellant remained in prison since May 2006 and was incarcerated in death cell w.e.f. 2013 till date, almost for more than eleven years---Section 302(b), P.P.C. provides a punishment for death or imprisonment for life---Total period of detention of the appellant in prison was about 18 years, without earning a single day of remission, because of being awarded death sentence---If remissions were counted towards his sentence, the appellant had served a period of almost an imprisonment for life---Delay in conclusion of judicial proceedings was on account of the system in vogue and for no fault of the appellant---After serving a sentence for life, including eleven years detention in death cell, executing his death penalty at present stage would not only be harsh, but would also be contrary to the principle of life expectancy---Under such circumstances, the appellant could not be sentenced twice for one and the same offence, hence punishment for death awarded to the appellant could not sustain---Appeal was dismissed; conviction awarded to the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. was maintained, however, the sentence of death awarded to him was altered to that of imprisonment for life]---[Per Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. [Minority view]: Considering the distance between police station and place of occurrence it could safely be concluded that there was no delay in the registration of the FIR---Primary eye-witness was a resident of the same locality, and was a natural eye-witness to the occurrence, as he lived in close proximity to the place of incident---Ocular account furnished by the eye-witness stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence---Incident in the present case could not be characterized as a free fight or unpremeditated murder because firstly deceased was shot to death by the appellant, then his dead body was thrown in a nala---Moreover, when the FIR in the present case was registered by the complainant, the appellant not only murdered the complainant in a brutal and gruesome manner but also assassinated his son---Appellant was a habitual criminal/murderer, who had no regard for human life---Case of acquitted co-accused was fundamentally distinct from that of the appellant, therefore, his acquittal held no bearing on the appellant's case---Because of the brutality and dangerousness of the appellant's actions, it was necessary to impose a strict punishment on him i.e. capital punishment in order to deliver justice and protect society---Mitigating the punishment based on the long trial or the time the appellant spent in custody did not change the severity of the crime---Appeal was dismissed and death penalty imposed by the High Court was maintained]

GHULAM RASOOL vs State S — 2025 SCMR 74 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR