It is a well-settled proposition of the law that in the absence of premeditation to commit murder where motive is not proved by the prosecution , the same may be considered........

Crl.P.476-L/2018
Muhammad Yasin v. The State, etc
2024 S C M R 128 

It is a well-settled proposition of the law that in the absence of premeditation to commit murder where motive is not proved by the prosecution , the same may be considered as the mitigating factor in order to reduce the quantum of sentence in cases involving the capital punishment.

Qatl-i-amd --- Reappraisal of evidence --- There was no deliberate delay in reporting the matter to the police --- Passage of time between the occurrence was sufficiently explained as the victim was injured and taken to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries --- Ocular account of three eyewitnesses remained consistent throughout and confidence inspiring on each and every material point --- There was no prior enmity between the parties and the medical evidence fully corroborated the ocular account --- There was sufficient and adequate incriminating evidence on the record against the accused and the conviction was rightly upheld by the High Court --- Jail petition was dismissed and leave was refused .

S. 302 (b) --- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR ) , Art . 6 --- Qatl-i-amd --- Reappraisal of evidence --- Sentence , reduction in --- Motive not proved --- Recovery of crime weapon inconsequential --- Quantum of sentence may be reduced from death penalty to imprisonment for life if the prosecution fails to establish motive --- This principle is in conformity with Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR ) --- In the absence of premeditation to commit murder where motive is not proved by the prosecution , the same may be considered as a mitigating factor in order to reduce the quantum of sentence in cases involving capital punishment --- In the present case the High Court had correctly concluded that the motive was not proved by the prosecution and the recovery of the crime weapon was inconsequential --- As such the respondent ( convict ) was entitled to the benefit of reduction of sentence and the High Court rightly altered his death sentence to imprisonment for life --- Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused .

Crl.P.476-L/2018

Muhammad Yasin v. The State, etc

2024 S C M R 128