MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ vs State — 2026 SCMR 1085 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.

MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ VS State. Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, munaqqilah, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Occurrence not pre-planned---Alleged motive not established---No crime empties recovered from the place of occurrence---Convict being of advanced age---Mitigating circumstances---Death sentence converted into imprisonment for life---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the mother and sister-in-law of the complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to the brother of the complainant---Admitted position was that the occurrence was not the outcome of any pre-planned or premeditated design---Undisputed fact was that the petitioner-convict and the complainant party were neighbours inter se and, as reflected in the site plan, their houses were adjacent to each other and situated in the same Mohallah---Record further revealed that while the complainant party was taking cattle by passing alongside the house of the petitioner, wife of the petitioner became annoyed and proceeded to the house of the complainant party for complaint, where a scuffle/grappling took place between her and the deceased mother of the complainant---Upon such grappling between his wife and the deceased mother of the complainant, the petitioner-convict was attracted to the spot and the said grappling culminated in the present occurrence---Apart from that, prosecution witnesses asserted that, prior to the occurrence, the petitioner-convict had been implicated in a criminal case relating to alleged theft of a buffalo at the instance of the complainant party and that he, being aggrieved therefrom, committed the offence; however, no independent or documentary evidence, such as a copy of the FIR or the judgment rendered in the said case by any Court, was produced on record---In absence of such supporting material, the alleged motive could not be said to have been established---Similarly, recovery of the crime weapon, allegedly effected at the pointation of the petitioner and subsequently reported by the Forensic Science Agency to be in working condition, was inconsequential, for the reason that no crime empties were recovered from the place of occurrence---Record further showed that at the time of recording of his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. on 21.09.2019, the petitioner-convict was approximately seventy years of age---As of 03.02.2026, he was about seventy-six years, six months and six days old and, thus, was a man of advanced age---Considering all such mitigating circumstances, ends of justice would be adequately met by commuting the sentence of death awarded to the petitioner-convict to imprisonment for life---Accordingly, conviction and sentences of the petitioner-convict in all offences were upheld; however, his sentence under Section 302(b), P.P.C. was commuted from death on two counts to rigorous imprisonment for life on two counts---Petition was converted into an appeal and was partly allowed.

MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ vs State — 2026 SCMR 1085 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR