Where the prosecution fails to prove motive, the court should not award a capital sentence. The offender’s young age should be considered a relevant mitigating factor.
The appellant, Amjad Shah, along with his co-accused Sajid Shah (since acquitted) were sentenced to death upon conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the PPC for murder. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the co-accused, Sajid Shah, but maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant Amjad Shah.
The deceased insulted the co-accused, Sajid Shah, for damaging the deceased’s crops and on the next day the appellant and co-accused set out to avenge the insult. When confronted, the deceased started running. A chase ensued and the co-accused fired one shot from his pistol that missed the deceased. Meanwhile, the appellant shot the deceased on the forehead fatally. On the appeal, the High Court acquitted the co-accused on the ground of his ineffective firing upon the deceased and because the motive set up by the prosecution was vague and tenuous. However, the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Amjad Shah, was maintained on the grounds that he caused the fatal injury and that the lack of his motive was inconsequential on account of the clear and convincing visual witnesses. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that “the accused’s intention, guilty mind or motive to commit the offence remains shrouded in mystery and is therefore unproven.”1
In such cases where the motive is not proved or is not alleged by the prosecution, the Supreme Court for the sake of administration of justice, adopts caution and treats the lack of motive as a mitigating circumstance for reducing the quantum of sentence awarded to a convict. The prosecution failed to attribute any motive to the appellant as there was no proof of any damaged crop, the insult by the deceased was directed towards the co-accused, and it lacked gravity and the nexus with the appellant. The absence of a repeat firing also dispelled premeditation by the appellant to kill the deceased.
The Supreme Court also found the accused young age (24) as a mitigating factor noting that “youthful tendency toward excitement and impulsiveness are also treated by the law as a mitigating circumstance.”2 The Supreme Court therefore granted partial appeal and reduced the accused sentence from death to life imprisonment.
