SULTAN AHMED UJJAN vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Sindh High Court, which had upheld his conviction and sentence for the Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased. The prosecution case relied on ocular testimony, a strong motive involving family honor, a judicial confession, and the recovery of the crime weapon, which matched the crime empties. The petitioner contended that the crime was unwitnessed and claimed to be a psychoactive patient, though a psychiatric board certified his fitness to stand trial. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting the presence of eyewitnesses was consistent and the incident occurred in daylight with known parties. The Court rejected the petitioner's retraction of his confession as an afterthought and dismissed his claims regarding police misconduct. The Court held that individuals are not authorized to take the law into their own hands under the guise of provocation or family honor. Finding the prosecution's case robust and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, the Supreme Court refused to reappraise the evidence and dismissed the petition.
- Can a convict claim provocation or family honor as a legal justification for committing Qatl-i-Amd?
- Does a belated allegation of police misconduct regarding the detention of family members invalidate a judicial confession?
- Is a psychiatric board's certification of a defendant's fitness to understand court proceedings sufficient to proceed with a trial?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner is aggrieved by Sindh High Court judgment, dated 29-9-2006 dismissing his appeal against his conviction and sentence on the charge of Qatl-i-Amd of deceased Ghulam Shabbir committed on or about 24-12-1991 at about 1-00 p.m. Within the jurisdiction of Police station Kandiaro.
2. Precisely stated, the facts appear to be that on the material day, first informant Nisar Ahmed, Clerk in WAPDA, Kandiaro along with Abdul Ghafoor, Ghulam Abbas and deceased Ghulam Shabbir came out of his office to have a cup of tea at about 1-00 p.m. When they reached the main gate of the office, they noticed petitioner Sultan Ahmed standing outside the gate, who challenged deceased Ghulam Shabbir to halt. The witnesses persuaded the petitioner not to assault the deceased but the latter took out a pistol from folds of his Shalwar and fired at the deceased hitting him on the left side of his back. They tried to apprehend the petitioner but he reloaded the pistol and challenged them not to approach him, failing which they would also be killed because he had killed his enemy who had married Mst. Noor Jehan, former wife of his uncle Qaimuddin after obtaining divorce.
3. After recording F.I.R. Investigation was taken up. On 27-12-1991 petitioner was arrested, when he produced a country made pistol along with two live cartridges, which, on being referred to the Fire- arm Expert, were found to wed with the crime empty recovered from the place of occurrence. He also made a judicial confession before Resident Magistrate, Kandiaro implicating himself. Petitioner at the trial claimed to be psychoactive patient but the Court constituted a Board of Psychiatric Experts for his examination, who vide report dated 3-10-2003 certified that he was capable of understanding the Court proceedings. At the conclusion of trial, petitioner was found guilty of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and compensation of Rs,25,000. The convict appealed before the Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench but without any success, hence this petition.
4. We have heard Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner at length and examined the record wit care and caution.
5. While the prosecution case rests upon ocular evidence of Nisar Ahmed P.W.1, Abdul Ghafoor P.W.2 and Ghulam Abbas P.W.3, fully corroborated by medico-legal opinion, strong motive for the commission of the crime, judicial confession of the Petitioner and the recovery of crime weapon at his instance, learned counsel vehemently agitated that this was an unwitnessed crime, as per D.
W.1 Muhammad Alam, examined by the petitioner in his defence. Upon scrutiny of the evidence and careful consideration of the record, we find that the incident was indeed witnessed by the persons named hereinabove, whose presence at the scene of offence has not been shattered. In fact, this is a case of single accused and evidently there is no occasion for substitution or mistaken identity. It was a daylight incident and the parties were known to each other. Prosecution version is fully supported by medico-legal evidence, which is in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case. Soon after the arrest, the petitioner on the very next day, had made his breast clean by confessing his participation in the commission of the crime, wrongly asserting to have killed a "Karo". In law, no person is authorized to take the law into his hands and slaughter his enemy at his whims by pretending to have acted under provocation and family honour. Learned counsel attempted to argue that the confessional statement of the petitioner was retracted at the trial but we are hardly impressed by such submission as no grievance appears to have been made by the petitioner at the earliest opportunity before the Magistrate First Class, who recorded his judicial confession. His allegation against the Investigating Officer with regard to detaining inmates of his house at police station is obviously an afterthought and much belated, which does not have the impact of demolishing the whole prosecution case. Prosecution case is further strengthened by strong motive ascribed to the petitioner as well as recovery of crime weapon matching with the crime-empties. These factors, in our opinion, are adequate enough to saddle the petitioner with the charge levelled against him.
6. For the aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons, there is no ground for indepth reappraisal of evidence and the grant of leave. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.