Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860----Ss. 302(a), 302(b), 302(c), 304, 306, 307 & 308---Qatl-i-amd (intentional murder)---Distinction between Qisas and Ta’zir---Scope and applicability of Section 308, P.P.C.---Authoritative interpretation---Supreme Court clarified that Qisas and Ta’zir are two distinct and mutually exclusive legal regimes under Islamic criminal jurisprudence---Section 308, P.P.C., providing alternate punishment where Qisas is not liable or enforceable, is applicable only in cases where Qisas is otherwise attracted but barred due to specific exceptions under Ss. 306 or 307, P.P.C.---Where murder is proved without fulfilling the evidentiary requirements of S. 304, P.P.C., such case falls within the Ta’zir domain under S. 302(b), P.P.C., and Ss. 306–308, P.P.C., have no application---Confusion arose due to earlier judgments applying S. 308, P.P.C., to Ta’zir cases without assessing whether Qisas was applicable---Court categorically held that benefit under S. 308, P.P.C., is not available in cases where conviction is under S. 302(b), P.P.C. as Ta’zir.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 306---Qatl-i-amd not liable to Qisas---Categories defined---Provision does not create a distinct offence but provides exceptions to the enforcement of Qisas in cases where the offender is a minor, insane, parent, or where Wali is a direct descendant---Offenders falling under this provision may be exempt from Qisas but may still face punishment under S. 308, P.P.C., provided the case otherwise qualifies as Qisas.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 308---Punishment in Qatl-i-amd not liable to Qisas---Limited application---Provision operates only where Qisas is applicable but not enforceable due to exceptions in Ss. 306 or 307, P.P.C.---Does not apply to cases where punishment is awarded as Ta’zir under S. 302(b), P.P.C.(d) Case Law---Conflicting Precedents---Resolution by Larger BenchCourt reviewed case law spanning over two decades and resolved the long-standing judicial divergence regarding the applicability of Ss. 306–308, P.P.C.---Judgments in cases such as Khalil-uz-Zaman v. Supreme Appellate Court (PLD 1994 SC 885) and its reversal in Faqir Ullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman (1999 SCMR 2203) revisited---Court held that the latter judgment by a five-member bench holds greater authoritative value and correctly laid down the law---All subsequent decisions granting benefit of S. 308, P.P.C., in Ta’zir cases were held per incuriam to the extent they ignored or misapplied Faqir Ullah’s ratio.(e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Art. 17---Tazkiyah-tul-shahood---Precondition for Qisas punishment---Qatl-i-amd punishable as Qisas can only be awarded if confession or competent eyewitness testimony (in accordance with Islamic standards) is provided---Failure to meet these requirements shifts the case to Ta’zir regime under S. 302(b), P.P.C.(f) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973----Art. 203G---Interpretation of Islamic injunctions---Scope of judicial review---Supreme Court clarified that interpretation of Islamic injunctions for the purposes of testing repugnancy lies with the Federal Shariat Court and not with the Supreme Court or High Courts.Disposition:Court conclusively held that provisions of Ss. 306, 307, and 308, P.P.C. apply exclusively to cases of Qisas and are inapplicable to Ta’zir convictions under S. 302(b), P.P.C.---Judicial clarity reaffirmed on the doctrinal separation of Qisas and Ta’zir frameworks in Islamic criminal law.Cited Cases:• Faqir Ullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman, 1999 SCMR 2203• Iftikhar-ul-Hassan v. Israr Bashir, PLD 2007 SC 111• Muhammad Akram v. The State, 2003 SCMR 855• Ghulam Murtaza v. The State, 2004 SCMR 4• Tauqeer Ahmad Khan v. Zaheer Ahmad, 2009 SCMR 420

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302(b)/34, 337-A(ii)/34, 337-L(ii)/34 & 337-D-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-Leave to appeal was allowed to accused to consider whether the main accused could be punished with Qisas for the Qatl-i-Amd of his wife in view of the provisions of S.306, P.P.C., who had left behind two daughters out of her wedlock with the accused who were the Wali of the deceased and direct descendants of the accused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 306-Qatl-i-Amd not liable to Qisas-Extent and scope-Provisions of S.306, P.P.C. provide only that Qisas shall not be enforced on an offender whose descendants were Wali of the deceased person. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302(b)/34, 337-A(ii)/34, 337-L(ii)/34 & 337-D-Appraisal of evidence-Main accused had not been punished with death by way of Qisas under S.302(a), P.P.C., but had been directed to suffer death by way of Tazir under S.302(b)/34, P.P.C.-Question to resolve on which the leave to appeal had been granted, therefore, did not require determination and the other issues formulated in the leave granting order, thus, had also lost significance in the case-All the four eye-witnesses were not only injured in the occurrence but they were also the natural witnesses of the incident being the residents of the place where the" crime had been committed-No background of any previous enmity existed between the parties to lead the eye-witnesses to maliciously involve the accused in the present occurrence-Defence plea taken by accused had been rightly discarded by the Courts below for sound' reasons-Accused had acted in a callous, ruthless and brutal manner in his efforts to take back his estranged wife and was responsible for the death of two innocent persons and for causing injuries to four other innocent victims-Accused did not deserve any sympathy or leniency-Appeal filed by accused was dismissed accordingly. Raja Abdul Rehman, A.A.-G. for the State.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302(b)-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Presence of witnesses including the complainant in the house of occurrence at the relevant time was quite natural and beyond doubt-Accused had neither denied his presence in his house on the day of occurrence nor offered any explanation as to how and under what circumstances his deceased wife while sleeping with him in a room of his house had sustained injuries with the sharp-edged weapon on the sensitive part of her body-Bare denial of accused of knowledge of occurrence and not offering the required explanation had provided a strong corroboration to the eye-witness account to prove his guilt-Ocular testimony was further corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of Chhuri at the instance of accused which was found stained with human blood-No direct or circumstantial evidence was available on record to suggest that the accused had acted under sudden provocation-Possibility of exchange of words between the deceased and accused as husband and wife on family affairs would not permit the accused to take such a cruel step of killing his wife-Accused had not even taken any such plea in his defence-No leniency could be given to accused in matter of sentence who on a very petty dispute had committed the murder of an innocent and helpless woman-Leave to appeal, was declined to accused in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 306, 307 & 308-Application and scope-Provisions of Ss.306, 307 & 308, P.P.C. would only attract in the cases of Qatl-i-Amd liable to Qisas under S.302(a), P.P.C. and not in the cases in which sentence for Qatl-i-Amd had been awarded as Tazir under S.302(b) & (c), P.P.C.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302, 306 & 308-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to accused to examine the question as to whether the accused being not liable to Qisas in view of the provisions contained in S.306 read with S.308, P.P.C., could have been punished under S.302, P.P.C. or otherwise. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302, 306 & 308-Appraisal of evidence-Deceased was survived by a two years' old daughter who was admittedly the Wali of the deceased and descendant of the accused-Accused, therefore, was not liable to Qisas in view of the provision as enumerated in S.306, P.P.C. and he could only be convicted under S. 308(2), P.P.C. which did not provide the sentence of death or imprisonment for life-Conviction of accused under S.302, P.P.C. was consequently set aside and instead he was convicted under S.308(2), P.P.C. to undergo 14 years' R.I. and to pay Diyat-Appeal was accordingly dismissed with the said modification. Khalil-uz-Zaman v. Supreme Appellate Court, Lahore PLD 1994 SC 885 ref.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 308-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)' -Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether charge against accused could be altered from S. 302, P.P.C. to S. 308, P.P.C. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 308, 306, 307(c) & 302-Applicability of S. 308, P.P.C.-Section 308, P.P.C. can only be invoked when accused is found to be guilty of Qatl-i-Amd but he is not liable to Qisas under S. 306, P.P.C. or the Qisas is not enforceable under cl. (c) of S. 307, P.P.C.-Section 308, P.P.C., even if applicable, cannot be applied until first the accused is found guilty of Qatl-e-Amd, under S.30%P.P.C.-Provisions of S. 308, P.P.C. are to apply through their own force when the case falls under the provisions of S. 306, P.P.C,, or S. 307(c) P.P.C., which are to be read together with S. 302, P.P.C, and not in isolation. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 308-Application of S.308, P.P.C.-Accused must first be charged for Qatl-e-Amd under S. 302, P.P.C. and only when such charge 118`i been established, provisions of S. 308, P.P.C. could be applied to the case' Sessions Court had substituted the charge framed under S. 302, P.P.C. with that under S. 308, P.P.C., which was not warranted by law-Case was, consequently, remanded to Sessions Court for taking further action in accordance with law. Altaf Ilahi Sheikh, Deputy Attorney-General for the State.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302, 306 & 308-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-Contention was that the deceased was survived by a daughter aged 2 years at the time of her murder who was the "Wali" of the deceased and also the descendant of the accused and, as such, accused was not liable to Qisas by virtue of S. 306, P.P.C., and he could only be punished with imprisonment extending to 14 years as Tazir as provided under S. 308(2), P.P.C.-Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to examine the said contention.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 302(b), 306, 308, 34--- Murder case---Conviction and sentence---Ocular evidence, motive, and medical corroboration---Maintainability of death sentence and mitigating circumstances. Accused Ahmad Nawaz was sentenced to death under Section 302(b) read with Section 34, PPC, while co-accused Muhammad Ramzan and Allah Bukhsh were sentenced to life imprisonment with compensation under the same sections. Occurrence took place in broad daylight and was reported promptly to the police. Ocular evidence provided by two witnesses was corroborated by medical evidence, including 15 injuries coinciding with the number of accused, and the fatal injury to the deceased's head caused by Ahmad Nawaz with the blunt side of a hatchet. Prosecution successfully proved the motive related to a land possession dispute, though weak or absent motive was held not to constitute a mitigating circumstance as per Supreme Court precedent. Held, the death sentence of Ahmad Nawaz was confirmed, while Muhammad Ramzan's appeal was dismissed. Conviction and sentences were upheld. (b) Juvenile offender---Mitigation of sentence: ----Ss. 302(b), 306, 308, PPC & 342, Cr.P.C.--- Accused aged below 18 years at the time of the offense---Sentence altered from death to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment. Accused Allah Bukhsh, aged less than 18 at the time of the offense, was convicted under Section 308, PPC, instead of Section 302(b), PPC. Evidence of his age included a school leaving certificate corroborated by testimony, as well as his statement recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. Trial Court's sentence was modified to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment along with payment of diyat, with the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., applied. Held, considering his age and lack of sufficient maturity, conviction was appropriately altered under the provisions of Section 308, PPC. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 342 & 382-B---Prompt reporting and procedural compliance--- Occurrence reported promptly with no enmity between parties---FIR lodged at 12:30 p.m., just over two hours after the occurrence. Police promptly investigated the crime scene and recorded ocular and corroborative evidence. Accused's age was properly verified, and the court considered mitigating factors before delivering its judgment. Held, the prosecution proved its case to the hilt through credible ocular and medical evidence. ----Disposition: Death sentence of Ahmad Nawaz confirmed. Life imprisonment of Muhammad Ramzan upheld. Conviction of Allah Bukhsh altered to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 308, PPC, with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. applied. ----Cited Cases: • Waris Khan v. The State (2001 SCMR 387)