Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 533 of 1980, decided on 8th February, 1982.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 16‑6‑1980, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 1978 and Murder Reference No. 198 of 1978).

‑‑ S. 302‑[Murder‑case]‑One of prosecution witnesses closely related to accused petitioner as well as deceased and appearing to be a truthful witness having no motive whatever to falsely involve petitioner‑Held : Conviction could be based on his statement alone. ‑[Witness]

‑‑ Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑[Murder case]‑Mitigation of offence‑Leave to appeal‑Contention that 'in view of age of petitioner (15/16 years) and motive alleged by prosecution itself that his father had been murdered when he only about 2/3 years old, that he firmly believed deceased having murdered his father, and he committed murder to avenge his father's murder‑Contention appearing to have substance, leave to appeal granted to consider, question.‑[Leave to appeal].

Ajun Shah v. The State P L D 1967 S C 185 ref.

Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Malik Maqbool Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.

Date of hearing: 8th February 1982.

‑Muhammad Aslam petitioner was tried and convicted by Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, for the murder of his uncle Mehdi Hassan and was sentenced to death and a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default thereof to further R. I for one year subject to confirmation of death sentence by the High Court. The High Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the sentence of death.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the evidence of the eye‑witnesses and attempted to argue that their testimony was not such as should have been believed without independent corroboration. He has pointed out certain infirmities in the statement of Muhammad Hussain (P. W. 8), but we find that Abdul Sattar (P. W. 9) who is closely related to the accused petitioner as well as the deceased and appears to us to be a truthful witness had no motive whatsoever to falsely involve the petitioner. We are of the view that conviction could be based on his statement alone. This is, therefore, not a fit case for interference on merits.

3. The learned counsel also urged that in view of the age of the petitioner B tit the time of occurrence (i e. 15/16 years) and the motive alleged by the prosecution itself, namely that his father (Hadi Hassan) had been murdered when he was about 2/3 years old; that he firmly believed that it was hi uncle Mehdi Hassan (deceased) who had murdered him and that he ha committed the murder to avenge his father's murder. In support of the last contention he relied on the case of Ajun Shah v. The State (PLD 1967SC185), and tip subsequent judgments based on that authority.

4. There appears to be substance in this contention. Leave is, therefore, granted only on the question of sentence.

Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.