MUKHTAR SHAH vs THE STATE
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by two lower courts against the petitioner for the murder of his wife. The core legal questions involved whether the petition was barred by limitation due to an unexplained delay of 579 days and whether the petitioner successfully established his alternate plea of grave and sudden provocation under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition both as being barred by time and on merits, holding that the petitioner failed to provide any plausible explanation for the massive delay and could not point out any illegality, misreading, or non-appreciation of evidence by the courts below, as he failed to substantiate his defence plea or rebut the prosecution's case which proved he was apprehended at the spot. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on sound appreciation of evidence will not be interfered with in the absence of material illegality, and unexplained delay warrants dismissal of a petition.
- Whether a criminal petition suffering from a substantial and unexplained delay in filing is liable to be dismissed as barred by time?
- Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below be interfered with when the petitioner fails to point out any illegality or misreading of evidence?
- Is a defence plea taken under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to rebut a prosecution case without being established by evidence?
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- At the very outset, this petition is barred by 579 days for which no plausible explanation has been furnished. Even on merits, though learned counsel argued the case at length, yet could not point out any illegality, misreading or non-appreciation of evidence. The plea raised by the petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. That he often used to remain outside his house and his wife namely Mst. Ruqayya Bibi used to reside in the house where his brother and father resided. She was lady of bad character and he used to admonish her from doing such acts. According to him, on the eventful night his wife had gone outside the house in field. Complainant Baqir Shah, brother of deceased, followed her and finding her in objectionable position with someone, killed her. This plea has not been established by the petitioner to be true. He neither examined himself on oath nor led any evidence to rebut the case of prosecution which otherwise is fully established on record by the prosecution whereby he was apprehended at the spot while committing murder of his wife Mst. Ruqayya at the door of his house. There being concurrent finding recorded by two Courts below with regard to guilt of accused, we do not find any reason to interfere. Accordingly, this petition, being devoid of any force, is dismissed as barred by time as well as on merits. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.