Muhammad Sharif v. State (PLD 2009 SC 709)

The infliction of the death penalty is justified only when the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner, after consideration of any extenuating or mitigating circumstances.


The accused was charged with murder under PPC 302(b) and acquitted at trial. On appeal, the High Court of Balochistan convicted the accused and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but commuted the sentence to life imprisonment.

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court made clear that the death penalty is no longer considered a default sentence for murder, stating “the infliction of death penalty” is justified only “when the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner, so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community…” The court also explained that judicial discretion allowed for the “altering and converting [of] the death penalty,” with respects to the facts and circumstances of the case, pursuant to PPC 302(b). Exercising this discretion would “advance the rationale and philosophy behind the mandate of Article 9 of the Constitution.”

The Court further outlined that in any murder case, “there may be a host of extenuating and mitigating circumstances such as extreme youth, sudden provocation, influence of an elder, question of family honour etc. justifying the award of the lesser penalty of life imprisonment based on a chain of judicial pronouncements offering useful guidelines.” This analysis is dependent on a detailed review of the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

The Court also quoted the Indian Supreme Court case of Macchi Singh and others v State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC 957) as stating that “The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. . . Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime.”

After analyzing the specific facts of the instant case, particularly that the murder was not planned and was in response to provocation, the Supreme Court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment.