What’s the probability that the verdict will be upheld in the High Court and Supreme Court if the Sessions Court sentences the culprit to life imprisonment in a 302 case? Please advise.
In Pakistan’s legal system, the probability of a verdict being upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court after a Sessions Court sentences a culprit to life imprisonment in a case under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) involves several considerations.
The High Court and Supreme Court undertake a thorough review of the evidence, legal arguments, and procedural correctness of the trial. The appellate courts may uphold, modify, or reverse the decision of the Sessions Court, depending on their assessment of the case.
Several factors influence the likelihood of a verdict being upheld:
- Evidence: The strength and credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution play a vital role. If the evidence is compelling and supports the verdict, the appellate courts are more likely to uphold the decision. As noted in Shamshad alias Shada v. The State, 1997 PCRLJ 1234, credible evidence and reliable witness testimonies are crucial in criminal trials, and doubts about the prosecution’s case can lead to suspension of sentences.
- Legal Arguments: The soundness of the legal arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defense is essential. If the trial was conducted fairly and in accordance with the law, the appellate courts are more likely to uphold the verdict.
- Procedural Correctness: Any procedural irregularities during the trial can impact the outcome on appeal. The Muhammad Usman v. The State, 1992 PCRLJ 88, case underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of Section 367, Cr.P.C., in criminal cases, particularly when a case is remanded for retrial.
- Mitigating Circumstances: The presence of mitigating circumstances, such as sudden provocation or the age of the accused, can influence the appellate courts’ decision. As seen in Talat Mehmood versus Muhammad Ilyas and others, 2002 SCMR 1889, mitigating circumstances can lead to the conversion of a death sentence to life imprisonment.
- Compromise and Settlements: Compromises reached between parties, especially in cases involving Qisas and Diyat laws, can also affect the outcome of appeals. The Muhammad Zaman and another v. The State and another, 2009 MLD 312 judgment, highlights the court’s willingness to consider compromises reached between parties, especially when verified as genuine and voluntary.
- Delay in Justice: Significant delays in the judicial process can influence the decision to uphold a sentence. In Niaz Ahmad v. Naim Akhtar and Another, 1977 SCMR 159, the Supreme Court considered the delay in bringing the appeal to a hearing as a factor in commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment.
- Benefit of Doubt: The principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused at any stage of the criminal case is crucial. This is reinforced in PERVAIZ and 2 others Versus THE STATE, 2010 YLR 1397, where the court considered the nature of the injury attributed to the petitioner and the prolonged period of incarceration when deciding on bail applications pending appeal.
- Sentence Modification: The Supreme Court in Muhammad Juman v. The State and others, 2018 SCMR 318, clarified the sentencing options available under Section 302(b) P.P.C., emphasizing that a sentence of “already undergone” is not a legal option and that High Courts must follow due process and legal provisions when altering sentences.
While it is challenging to assign a precise numerical probability to the likelihood of a verdict being upheld due to the multitude of factors involved, it is clear that the appellate courts conduct a rigorous review of the case.
Ramzan and 3 others v. The State, PLD 1992 Supreme Court 11, clarifies the applicability of Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code to individuals sentenced to life imprisonment ensuring pre-conviction detention is considered, promoting fairness.
In conclusion, while there are several factors that affects the likelihood of a verdict being upheld, It is, therefore, challenging to assign it a numerical probability.