Lawyers Directory Listing
صرف 1000 روپے میں 10 وکلاء تک کی براہِ راست رابطہ تفصیلات حاصل کریں اور کال یا واٹس ایپ کے ذریعے موزوں قانونی ماہر سے رابطہ کر کے اپنا معاملہ پورے اعتماد کے ساتھ آگے بڑھائیں۔
Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 64‑R and 91‑R of 1985, decided on 6th April, 1986.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 29‑4‑1985 in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1984 and Murder Reference No. 74 of 1984) .
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Eye‑witnesses disinterested‑‑Case of single accused‑‑Substitution or false implication of accused could safely be ruled out‑‑Convict wanting reappraisal of evidence which was 'not justified‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Sentence, reduction of‑‑Character of deceased‑‑Reduction of sentence ordered by High Court on ground of immoral character of deceased which might have provoked accused‑‑Observation of High Court about character of deceased not based on any reliable material‑‑Reduction of sentence on said ground not affirmed.
‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Reduction of sentence‑‑Motive‑‑Motive put up by prosecution failing‑‑Sentence of death reduced to imprisonment for life.‑‑[Motive Sentence].
Manzoor Ahmad v. The State P L D 1983 S C 197 rel.
Sh. Zafar Mahmud, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court with Karam Elahie Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 91‑R of 1985) .
‑These two petitions arise out of the same case; they are being disposed of together.
In Petition 91‑R of 1985, leave to appeal has been sought by a convict from judgment, dated 29‑4‑1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby while dismissing an appeal in a murder case the sentence of death was reduced to imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine and rigorous imprisonment in default thereof, were, however maintained.
In Criminal Petition No. 64‑R of 1985, the complainant side has sought leave to appeal in the same case from judgment of the High Court; whereby the sentence of death was reduced to imprisonment for life.
The prosecution case is that Muhammad Amir accused asked for the hand of Mst. Shamim Akhtar, the deceased young lady, daughter of the complainant for his elder brother Muhammad Ismail, but her parents were not in favour of this match. This annoyed the accused who, it is the prosecution case, took the revenge by taking the life of Mst. Shamim Akhtar by causing her injuries with hatchet when she was cutting Jawar in a field. The occurrence was witnessed by three persons; Miran Bux and Mst. Sardar Bano, the father and mother respectively of the deceased, and Hafiz Muhammad Aslam. The last mentioned witness was not, however, examined. It may be mentioned here that the accused is the sister's son of Miran Bux complainant (eye‑witness). In addition to the ocular testimony the recovery of crime hatchet was made from Muhammad Amir accused. It was stained with blood which was of human origin. The defence version, as against the prosecution case, based on ocular testimony, recovery and motive, was of denial. The learned trial Court found the accused guilty and awarded him sentence of death as also fine. This High Court, as noted above, on appeal while maintaining the conviction under section 302, P.P.C. reduced the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The accused was also given benefit of section 382‑B Criminal Procedure Code.
Learned counsel for the accused has tried to assail the judgment of conviction by contending that the eye‑witnesses are interested and that the motive asserted by the prosecution having been disbelieved by the High Court, it would re‑act on the whole case and the accused should have been acquitted.
In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the eye‑witnesses were interested, they are very close relations of the accused and it being a single accused case substitution or false implication can safely be ruled out. The learned counsel for the accused convict wants us to re‑appreciate the evidence. There is no question of law or principle justifying the same. We accordingly dismiss petition No. 91‑R of 1985.
Learned counsel for the complainant in the other petition has drawn our attention to the reason for reduction of the sentence given by the High Court in the impugned judgment. It was surmised that the accused is the first cousin of the deceased and because she being an unmarried woman had ruptured hymen, therefore, there was probability that the accused might have been provoked by some incident involving the honour of the accused and the deceased. This, learned counsel vehemently contended, was based on no evidence nor was there any plea taken at any stage by the accused on that line. Therefore, the sentence could not have been reduced on this ground.
There is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel. The observations about the character of the deceased are not based on any reliable material. We, therefore, are unable to agree with the High Court in so far as this ground for reduction of sentence is concerned.
However, the High Court has while dealing with the question of motive given another ground for reduction of sentence. It did not believe the motive asserted from the prosecution side and observed, in this behalf, as follows:
"For us the motive as set up appears to be some what shaky because with the refusal of the hand of Mst. Shamim Akhtar by her parents a person who could feel annoyed or become vindictive was Muhammad Ismail and could not be the appellant, his younger brother. Even if it were so yet the occasion had not arisen because Mst. Shamim Akhtar was not engaged to any body and still there was a room for the family of the appellant to prevail upon the complainant and his wife."
This means that the motive set up by the prosecution has not been believed by the High Court. It was held in Manzoor Ahmad v. The State P L D 1983 S C 197 that depending upon the circumstances of each case the failure of motive asserted by the prosecution might not re‑act on the entire prosecution case but it might effect the question of sentence and thus prove to be a mitigating circumstance. In the facts of this case also the motive having failed, it was a fit case for reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. Accordingly while upholding the judgment of the High Court for reduction of sentence on this ground we are not inclined to affirm the finding that the deceased was of immoral character.
With these observations Petition No. 64‑R of 1985 is also dismissed.
M. Y . H Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer