Lack of motive

Ghulam Mohy-Ud-Din alias Haji Babu v. State (2014 SCMR 1034)

A single mitigating circumstance or a single factor creating reasonable doubt is enough to reduce the sentence of death to life imprisonment.

Muhammad Ismail v. State (2017 SCMR 713)

The complainant’s testimony alone is not sufficient to prove motive, even where the accused chooses to remain silent. A lack of motive means a capital sentence cannot be awarded.

Muhammad Imran Asif v. State (2013 SCMR 782)

Where motive is unproven, and it is not clear who inflicted the fatal injuries the court should not award a capital sentence. If a young accused has acted under the direction of an elder, he should be shown leniency.

Amjad Shah v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 152)

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.

Zafar Iqbal alias Zafarullah Khan v State (2017 SCMR 1721)

The death penalty should not be awarded where there is a lack of premeditation and motive is unproven. The Supreme Court considers a single shot fired as evidence of lack of premeditation.