NOOR AHMED vs THE STATE and another
This criminal petition for leave to appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(3) of the Constitution by the father of the deceased, challenging the Lahore High Court’s judgment affirming the acquittal of the deceased’s husband. The husband and his brother were tried under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased inside her house. While the brother was convicted based on a corroborated confession and forensic recovery, the husband was acquitted because the case against him rested solely on an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession without any evidence of an overt act causing death. The core question was whether the husband's acquittal was legally justified given his mere presence at the scene and alleged extra-judicial confession. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, ruling that mere presence and an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession do not suffice to sustain a murder conviction under principles of safe administration of criminal justice, thereby declining leave to appeal.
- Whether an accused person's presence at the place of occurrence is sufficient to convict them for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of an overt act?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession?
- Whether the acquittal of an accused by the trial court and High Court warrants interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution when no evidence of overt participation is established?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 10th October, 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur whereby criminal appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that Muhammad Younis accused lodged a report with the Police Station Saddar, Chishtian on 27th January, 1995 at' about 7-55 a.m. To the effect that on.The night of incident at about 3-00 a.m. One person called him to open the door of his room whereupon he asked his wife Mst. Razia to open the door. When she opened the door of room 3 persons entered into the room andout of them one person was armed with a carbine. Two of them caught hold of Muhammad Younis accused and started beating him with kicks and fists and the third person caught hold of his wife. They tied Muhammad Younis with the cot. The person armed with carbine fired at his wife which hit near her left ear. She fell down at the spot and the culprits ran away. Her wife had died at the spot due to fire-arm injuries. He suspected Mst. Rasoolan Bibi wife of Muhammad Ramzan and other relatives for the murder of his wife, because they were not happy on their marriage. He left his father and brother Abdur Razzaq accused with the dead body and went to the police station for report.
3. It is important to note that later on during investigation the report lodged by Muhammad Younas was found false and the accused were found the real culprits who were responsible for the commission of the murder of Mst. Razia Bibi deceased. They had given a story trying to show the incident to be a case of decoity and that obviously was done to save Abdul Razzaq, the man accused in the case.
4. Muhammad Younas respondent and his brother Abdul Razzaq were tried in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar in case F.I.R. No,15 dated 27th January, 1995 under section 302/34, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Saddar, Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. According to allegations contained in the F.I.R. Abdul Razzaq fired at Mst. Razia Bibi wife of Muhammad Younas. The trial Court believed the prosecution case against Abdul Razzaq only and convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. And awarded- him imprisonment for life as Ta'zir and a fine of Rs,50,000 by judgment dated 10th March, 1997. As far as Muhammad Younas co-accused is concerned, he is acquitted of the charge.
5. Petitioner who is father of deceased Mst. Razia Bibi appealed before Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur against acquittal of Muhammad Younas but without success as the same has been dismissed by a Division Bench of learned High Court by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that Muhammad Younas being the husband of Mst. Razia Bibi deceased was equally responsible for the commission of her death caused by convict Abdur Razzaq who fired a shot at the deceased because the murder had taken place inside the living room of the deceased and the respondent has also made extra-judicial confession before P.W.7, therefore, there was no occasion to acquit him of the charge.
7. We have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the judgment rendered by the trial Court in pursuance whereof prosecution case against Abdur Razzaq has been believed on the basis of confessional statement which he made after the commission of the offence, which has also been corroborated from the shotgun recovered at his pointation which matched with crime empties, taken into possession from the place of occurrence. Therefore, following the principle laid down by this Court in the cases of Muhammad Swaleh and another v. Messrs United Grain and Fodder Agencies PLD 1964 SC 97 and Bahadur Khan v. The State PLD 1995 SC 336 Abdur Razzaq had rightly been convicted by the trial Court. As far as Muhammad Younas is concerned although allegation against him was that he was also present at the time of occurrence but there is nothing on record to prove that he had done anything to cause death to Mst. Razia Bibi except that he made uncorroborated extra-judicial confessional statement regarding the occurrence. Therefore, under these circumstances the learned trial Court, while following the principle of the safe administration of justice, had rightly acquitted the respondent vide judgment dated 10th March, 1997, which has been upheld by the learned High Court.
' Thus in view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. As such petition is dismissed and leave declined.
Cited by 2 cases
- ZAREEN SHAH vs THE STATE and 4 others 2005 P C R L J 739
- ZAREEN SHAH Versus State 2005 PCRLJ 739