Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition No. 210 of 1981, decided on 29th January, 1983.

(From the judgment dated 7‑12‑1980 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 1979 and Murder Reference No. 30 of 1979).

----Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑Petition for special leave to appeal‑Limitation‑Condonation of delay -Delay of 103 days condoned, in view of case being that of capital punishment‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5.‑[Condonation of delay].

‑‑ Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑Murder Witnesses of occurrence independent persons having no motive to falsely implicate accused‑Nothing shown to detract from credibility of such witnesses‑Apprehension of accused at spot and recovery of incriminating articles from him providing sufficient corroboration if any needed‑Order of High Court maintaining conviction and confirming death sentence‑Held, cannot be interfered with, in circumstances of case.

Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner,

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 29th January, 1983.

Riaz Masih petitioner is seeking leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 7‑12‑1980, whereby his appeal from his conviction under section 302, P. P. C. for the murder of his wife Mst. Bashiran deceased and the sentence of death plus a fine of Rs. 1,000 awarded there under, was dismissed and the death sentence was confirmed.

2. The deceased had been first married to her cousin but had later been abducted by the petitioner and they had entered into marriage after embracing Islam. The deceased bad, however, after 18 months of the marriage, returned to her parents' house alongwith her son born from the marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner having failed to secure the return of the deceased and the custody of his son, is said to have attacked the deceased on 13‑11‑1977 at peshiwela when she alongwith her mother Mst. Sardaran was returning to the village from the paddy fields. The petitioner shouting at the deceased that she must prepare to die for not giving him the custody of the child, fired from a pistol but when it did not work, he took out a chhuri from the folds of his shalwar and dealt repeal blows on the deceased, killing her at the spot. He was, however, apprehended at the spot alongwith his weapons by the witnesses who came to the scene attracted by the alarm. The report. was lodged by Mst. Sardaran at .3‑30 p.m. the same day. The Police on arrival arrested the petitioner recovered the revolver (Exh. P. 1) with six bullets (Exh. P. 2/1‑0) of which two had been fired but had missed, and the chhuri (Exh. P. 3). Shirt (Exh. P. 5) and shalwar (Exh. P. 6) were also recovered from his person. The chhuri, the shirt and the shalwar were later found by the Serologist to be stained with human blood.

3. The prosecution case was supported by two of the eye‑witnesses, namely, Mst. Sardaran (P. W. 6) and Umar Hayat (P. W. 7). The latter had been, at the time of the occurrence working in the fields and had been duly cited in the F. I. R. Muhammad Nazir Butt (P. W. ,5) and Muhammad Yaqoob (P. W. 9) stated that they had apprehended the petitioner at the spot. The recovery of the incriminating articles was proved by Muhammad Yaqoob (P. ‑ W. 91, Malik Hidayat Ullah (P. W. 10) and Nazir Ahmad A. S. I. (P. W. 11). The medical evidence showed the presence of as many as 26 injuries on the person of the deceased, of which 25 were incised wounds found all over the body including the face, the chest and the abdomen. Ten of the injuries were grievous in nature and dangerous to life and had been held sufficient to have caused the death. The petitioner's plea was of bare denial and of false implication by Mst. Sardaran whom he had insulted because she would not let the deceased go with him. Both the Courts below found the evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of the petitioner and finding no extenuating circumstance held him deserving of the extreme penalty.

4. This petition is late by 103 days but considering that it is a case of capital punishment we condone the delay.

5. Learned counsel has not been able to show anything to detract from the credibility of the witnesses. They are independent persons, having no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. 1t was a daylight occurrence and their presence is not open to doubt. The fact that the petitioner had been apprehended at the spot as also the recovery of the incriminating B articles from him provides sufficient corroboration if any needed. In the circumstance we do not find any basis justifying an interference with the order of the High Court. This petition for leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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