SANAULLAH vs STATE — 2026 PCrLJ 609 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

SANAULLAH VS STATE. Ss. 302(b), 364-A, 377 & 34---Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a minor for murder, unnatural offence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, enhancement of---Mitigating circumstances---Scope. The accused was charged for abducting the son of the complainant, committing unnatural offence and murdering him. In the present case, while considering the mitigating circumstances and keeping in view the established facts surrounding the case of the accused, it was imperative to enhance the punishment from life imprisonment to the death penalty due to the gruesome and shocking act committed by the accused. The Trial Court's decision to impose a lesser sentence on the basis of vague reasons could not be justified, as such considerations did not constitute valid mitigating circumstances. Awarding a lesser punishment on flimsy grounds, such as those mentioned in the impugned judgment, effectively granted individuals a license to commit heinous acts without fear of appropriate legal consequences. Furthermore, the accused had failed to provide any credible evidence to substantiate or draw any inference in connection with the offence which could warrant leniency. Therefore, the normal penalty for murder should be death when the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was just and necessary to impose the death penalty upon the accused in order to uphold the rule of law and deliver justice for the grievous crime committed against the innocent minor. Additionally, the theory of deterrence was a factor to be taken into consideration while awarding sentence, particularly the sentence of death. In the case of the accused, it was clear that he did not deserve any leniency as granted by the Trial Court. The facts and circumstances of the case demonstrated that the murder was deliberate, premeditated and shocking, leaving no room for mitigating circumstances which could justify a lesser sentence. The leniency shown in the case, where it was not deserved, constituted a serious dereliction of the Court's duty to administer justice. Therefore, under the established legal principles, the Court was required to impose the maximum penalty of death, reflecting the seriousness of the crime committed and the necessity for justice to be served without undue leniency. Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances, however, the revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence was allowed by enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to capital punishment of death.

SANAULLAH vs STATE — 2026 PCrLJ 609 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ