Find a Lawyer

AMJAD ALI versus THE STATE

ections Section 2 30 (b) and atat at the murder, joint intent ?? Maintenance of evidence - death sentence, confirmed - Three persons were pronounced dead during the incident, said FI in connection with the incident. Within two hours of the incident, the matter was reported to the police - the two suspects were named in the FIR and their specific role was assigned - submitted by the prosecution. The eyewitnesses were natural witnesses because they were prisoners in the house where part of the incident took place - said witnesses made permanent statements before the trial court. The convicts were completely guilty of the crimes committed and the medical evidence provided them ample support. The legal proceedings are based on testimony given by the defendants to some land property disputes and defenses. Based on the suggestions given to the prosecutor, the case presented by the prosecutor went a long way in acknowledging the motive - the firearms recovered from the suspects against some of the crimes recovered from the scene of the incident. And this aspect of the matter helped the ocular account. The accused's death was beyond reasonable doubt - the suspects had demonstrated extremely vile and vandalism. They started firing in a mosque, chased down the street and then inside the house of the complaining party. And followed them. They shot and killed three innocent people and injured each other.

PLD 2017 Supreme Court 661 

Present: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa,

Dost Muhammad Khan and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ

AMJAD ALI and others—Appellants

versus

The STATE—Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2012, decided on 27th March, 2017.

(Against the judgment dated 26-5-2009 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 1375 of 2005 and Capital Sentence Reference No.21-T of 2005).

(a) Penal Code (XLV of I860)—

—Ss. 302(b) & 34—Qatl-i-amd, common intention—Reappraisal of evidence—Death sentence, confirmation of—Three persons had been done to death during the occurrence—FIR in respect of the said incident had been lodged with sufficient promptitude inasmuch the matter had been reported to the police within two hours of the occurrence—Both the accused persons had been nominated in the FIR and specific roles had been attributed to them therein—Eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution, were natural witnesses because they were inmates of the house wherein one part of the occurrence had taken place—Said eye-witnesses made consistent statements before the Trial Court fully incriminating the accused persons in the offences alleged against them and the medical evidence had provided sufficient support to them—Motive set up by the prosecution was based upon a dispute between the parties over some landed property and the suggestions made by the defence to the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution went a long way in accepting the motive set up by the prosecution— Some crime-empties secured from the place of occurrence had matched with the firearms recovered from the accused persons and such aspect of the case had provided corroboration to the ocular account—Guilt of the accused persons had been established beyond reasonable doubt— Accused persons had demonstrated extreme highhandedness and brutality inasmuch they started firing in a mosque, chased the victims in a street and then followed them inside the complainant party 's house and throughout they kept on firing and murdered three innocent persons and injured another—Such kind of conduct displayed by the accused persons surely detracted from any sympathy to be extended to them in the matter of their sentences of death—Death sentence awarded to accused persons was maintained accordingly. [pp. 663, 664j A, B, C &, D

(b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) —

—Ss. 6, 7(a) & Third Sched. Item No. 4(ii)—Terrorism—Reappraisal of evidence—Act of terrorirsm—Scope—Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of—Power of Court to convict and sentence an accused— Scope—Occurrence in issue had developed in many phases—Accused persons started firing in a mosque, chased the victims in a street and then followed them inside the complainant party's house and throughout they kept on firing and murdered three persons and injured another—Mere firing at one's personal enemy in the backdrop of a private vendetta or design did not ipso facto bring the case within the purview of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 so as to brand the action as terrorism—In the present case there was no 'design' or 'object' contemplated by S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—By virtue of Item No.4(ii) of the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 a case became triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court if use of firearms or explosives, etc. in a mosque, imambargah, church, temple or any other place of worship was involved in the case—Said entry in the Third Schedule only made such a case triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court but such a case did not ipso facto become a case of terrorism for the purposes of recording convictions and sentences under S.6 read with S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Present case had, thus, rightly been tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court But the said Court could not have convicted and sentenced the accused persons for an offence under S.7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as it had separately convicted and sentenced the accused persons (under S. 302(b), P.P.C) for the offences of murder, etc. committed as ordinary crime—Appeal was partly allowed and the accused persons' convictions and sentences recorded for the offence under S.7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were set aside, [p. 6641E

Dr. Khalid Ranjha,Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Nayyab Hassan Gardezi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.

Tanvir Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.

Ch. Muhamamd Waheed, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.

Date of hearing: 27th March, 2017.

law firms from Chilas lawyer