AYAZ KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioner for murder and related offences. The petitioner was convicted under sections 302, 324, and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence and fines. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the petitioner's guilt through ocular evidence and circumstantial support, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's case was robust, supported by disinterested eye-witnesses who were present at the scene of the crime—a barber shop—and corroborated by the recovery of incriminating evidence and the petitioner's subsequent abscondence. The Court held that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court were in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the Court determined that there were no mitigating circumstances to warrant a reduction in the sentence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and declined leave to appeal.
- Does the presence of disinterested eye-witnesses at the scene of a crime provide sufficient basis for a conviction in a murder case?
- Can the abscondence of an accused be considered as a factor supporting the prosecution's case?
- Are concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding conviction and sentencing generally upheld in the absence of mitigating circumstances?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.--- The petitioner, through this jail petition, is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court. Peshawar whereby while maintaining his conviction recorded by the Trial Court under sections 302, 324, 337-F(i), P.P.C. And the sentences awarded to him (i) death and a fine of Rs,1,00,000 half of which on recovery was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. (ii) 7 years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,20,000 or in default one year R.I. (iii) 1 year's R.I. With Rs,10,000 as Daman to be paid to the injured complainant, respectively, his appeal was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case as given in the para.2 of the impugned judgment of the High Court is as under:- "(2) Brief facts of the prosecution case in brief are that while on patrol duty, Abdul Qayum Khan, A.S.-I. On receipt of information about the occurrence went to the spot and met Asfandyar son of Raham Gul who reported in injured condition that he is running barber's shop in Muhallah Safer Khel of village Prang. On the day of occurrence, as usual, he was present in his shop busy in making shave of Tahir Muhammad son of Muhammad Gul of the said village when at about 11-15 a.m. Ayaz alias Ayazay son of Nisar came duly armed and challenging Tahir Muhammad started indiscriminate firing at him with which he was hit and died while the complainant Asfandyar was hit and injured with the said firing, of the appellant. Shehryar and Nasir residents of Safer Khel were allegedly present on the spot who have witnessed the occurrence."
3. The occurrence has taken place in the shop of Barber Asfandyar, who is the complainant and appeared as P. W.10 and who has also sustained injuries at the time of occurrence as at that time the complainant was busy in making shave of the deceased. Shehryar, another eye-witness, appeared as P.W.11 who is brother of the complainant and was present on the spot at the relevant time. 2 empties of .30 bore and 3 spent bullets, were recovered from the spot and the blood was also taken into possession from the spot. The petitioner remained absconder for some time without any plausible explanation. In this case a single accused has been charged for firing effectively at the vital parts of the deceased repeatedly and the ocular version has been furnished by the disinterested witnesses who were having neither any enmity with the petitioner nor any relationship with the deceased and A who are the natural witnesses as it is in their shop where the occurrence has taken place. The ocular version is having the support of circumstantial evidence and also abscondance of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to create a little doubt in the prosecution case and we found the judgment of the two Courts below in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case. The question of lesser sentence was also considered but we did not find any mitigating circumstances which entitled the petitioner to a lesser sentence.
4. Resultantly, we see no force in this petition, the same is dismissed and leave declined.