2025 SCMR 74
Crl.A.57/2019
Ghulam Rasool v. The State, etc
It is now firmly established law that the absence of motive, failure to prove motive, or a motive that remains unclear or not alleged does not constitute a mitigating circumstance.
Thus, law is clear on this matter that the death penalty cannot be withheld solely because the prosecution fails to allege or establish a motive. The underlying reason behind this is that true motive for an offence is typically known only to the accused, rather than to the complainant, informant, or any other witnesses, unless it is explicitly or implicitly conveyed. Witnesses may describe the actions of accused during the commission of the offence. Others may try to infer or label the motive based on their observations or the information available to them, but the actual motive remains solely with the accused.
In the present case, the prosecution clearly demonstrated that the appellant, along with others, was involved in a deliberate and premeditated murder. Because of the brutality and dangerousness of the act, it is necessary to impose the strict punishment 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 does not change the severity of the crime. While it is unfortunate the appellant was in custody for a long time due to delays in the trial and hearing of appeal that does not justify leniency. The length of time in custody is a result of the legal process, not an indication that the crime was any less serious. Given the clear evidence of the appellant's involvement in a brutal murder, the death penalty remains the appropriate and necessary punishment. Reducing it would undermine the justice deserved by the victims and the severity of the crime committed.
Crl.A.57/2019
Ghulam Rasool v. The State, etc
2025 SCMR 74
Even otherwise, the appellant was arrested in the month of May 2006 and it took two years to complete his trial. The appeal filed before the High Court in the year 2008 remained pending for more than five years till its dismissal. The petition for leave to appeal filed against the impugned judgment before this Court in the year 2013 was fixed for hearing for the first time on 28th January 2019, when leave was granted. Thereafter, the case came up for hearing on 15th November 2021 and lastly on 19th March 2024 when the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard. The 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), PPC provides a punishment for death or imprisonment for life. The total period of detention of the appellant in prison is about 18 years, without earning a single day of remission, because of awarding death sentence. If remissions are counted towards his sentence, the appellant has served almost an imprisonment for life. The 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 this stage would not only be harsh, but would also be contrary to the principle of life expectancy¹. Under such circumstances, the appellant cannot be sentenced twice for one and the same offence, hence punishment for death awarded to the appellant cannot sustain.
2025 SCMR 74
Crl.A.57/2019
Ghulam Rasool v. The State, etc
0 Comments