' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
Criminal Petition No, 581 of 2011: ' It has inter alia been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case in hand was a case of circumstantial evidence only as no- eye-witness of the alleged occurrence had been produced by tie prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that links in the chain of the circumstantial evidence were broken at many places and, thus, it could not be said that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt He has also argued that the motive set up by the prosecution had been discarded by both the learned Courts below the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner was not only a weak piece of evidence but the same had not been sufficiently proved before the learned Trial Court and the gun and the crime- empties had been recovered and sent together diminishing, if not eliminating, the evidentiary value of such recoveries. On the legal plane it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even, if the case of the prosecution against the petitioner was accepted as correct on the factual side still it was a case attracting the provisions of Section 306(b) and (c), PPC and not a case attracting Section 302(b), PPC. lt has been maintained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case attracting the provisions of Section 306(b) and (c), PPC the sentence of the petitioner could have been recorded under Section 308, PPC which carried a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment at the time of the alleged occurrence, In this context the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that this Court has expressed different opinions in respect of the above-mentioned legal issue from time to time and the said issue requires a detailed examination by a Larger Bench of this Court, In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the cases of Naseer Ahmed v. The State (PLD 2000 SC 813), D// Bagh Hussain v. The State (2001 SCM R 232), Muhammad Abdullah Khan v. The State (2001 SCM R 1775), Amanat AH v. Nazim Ali and another (2003 SCM R 608), Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (2008 SCM R 396) and Khalid Mehmood v. The State (2011 SCM R 1110) wherein it had been held that in a case like the one in hand an accused person found guilty is to be Convicted under Section 306, PPC and is to be punished under Section 308, PPC! He has also referred to the cases of Faqir Ullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman and others (1999 SCM R 2203), Muhammad Afzal alias Seema v. The State (1999 SCM R 2652), Umar Hayat v. Jahangir and another (20O2 SCMR 629), Muhammad Akram v. The State (2003 SCM R 855), Ghulam Murtaza v.
The State (2004 SCM R 4), Nasir Mehmood and another v. The State (2006 SCM R 204), Abdul Jabbar v. The State and others (2007 SCM R 1496), Iftikhar-ul-Hassan v. Israr Bashir and another (PLD 2007 SC 111) and Tauqeer Ahmad Khan. v. Zaheer Ahmad and others (2009 SCM R 420) wherein this Court had categorically held that the. provisions of Sections 306 and 308, PPC stand attracted to a case of Qisas only and they do not apply to a case"of Ta'zir. Such divergence of opinion expressed by this Court in the above-mentioned precedent cases requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Larger Bench of this Court to settle the legal controversy at rest.
2. For what has been noted above this petition is allowed and leave to appeal is granted to consider the factual and legal aspects of this case highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Hon'ble Chief Justice may graciously consider constitution of a Larger Bench of this Court to determine the issues involved in the case, if so advised.
' Criminal Petition No, 568 of 2011
3. Through this petition the petitioner-complainant seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation ordered by the learned Trial Court to be paid by respondent No,
1. Let this petition be heard along with the appeal of the convict/respondent No, 1.