MUHAMMAD NASAR and another- vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and their sentence of death for a double murder. The core legal question involves determining whether concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts are sustainable in the face of contentions regarding witness contradictions, lack of medical corroboration, and a claim of minority. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the ocular testimony of natural witnesses, which inspired confidence and remained unshattered during cross-examination, fully corroborated the prosecution's case. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of guilt based on consistent eye-witness accounts in a broad-daylight occurrence will not be interfered with in the absence of tangible evidence supporting mitigating circumstances such as minority.
- Whether concurrent findings of guilt by lower courts can be interfered with when eye-witness testimony remains consistent and unshattered during cross-examination?
- Does a plea of minority or student status require positive evidence during trial to be considered as a mitigating circumstance?
- Whether contradictions in prosecution statements and medical evidence warrant setting aside a conviction where fatal roles are specifically attributed in the FIR?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 23- 2-2006 vide which a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed petitioners' appeal and maintained the conviction of the petitioners under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentence of death for the murder of Abdur Razzaq and Muhammad Ameer (in case registered vide F.I.R. No,170 of 2000, dated 31-7-2000 under sections 302/34, 109, P.P.C. Police Station Minchanabad). In all nine accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian and while acquitting the rest both the petitioners were convicted and sentenced in terms noted above.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seek leave on the ground that there are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account; that the story as given in the F.I.R. Is unnatural and that petitioner No,1 is a minor and does not deserve the sentence of death.
3. The prosecution story as given in para.2 of the impugned judgment is as follows:-- "Brief facts of the case as narrated in complaint Exh.P.F. Written by Mst. Kausar Tariq are that on the fateful day her father Muhammad Amir, her brother Abdul Razzaq, who was lecturer in P.A.F.
College, Peshawar, both deceased, her brother Zahid Nadeem P.W.7, Muhammad Arshad and her sister Mst. Jamila Bibi (given up P.Ws.) were present in the chamber of Syed Muhammad Akram Shah, Advocate, in connection with proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Pending before Assistant Commissioner, Minchanabad at about 10-00 a.m. Accused Nasir son of Asif, Allah Bakhsh son of Muhammad Siddiq, Ubaid Ullah son of Muhammad Jahangir, Habib Ullah son of Haji Jahangir, Muhammad Siddiq son of Bahawal, Talib Hussain son of Muhammad Umar, Muhammad Tahir son of Muhammad Umar came there straight in the Chamber of said Advocate, accused Nasir fired at Muhammad Amir which hit on his chest and he fell down. Accused Ubaid Ullah caught hold of said Muhammad Amir from his legs and asked Nasir to fire him as he was alive, on it Nasir accused made 3/4 fires on the deceased. Meanwhile Allah Bakhsh accused fired with .12 bore pistol at Abdul Razzaq, who entered in the Chamber by running which hit him on his back and he fell down.
Accused Tahir caught hold of Abdul Razzaq deceased from his legs and raised Lalkara to Allah Bakhsh accused, he fired at Abdul Razzaq and both the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Habib Ullah, Muhammad Siddiq and Talib Hussain accused, who had pistols in their hands, were raising Lalkara that if any one would come near he would be murdered. It is alleged in the complaint that the occurrence was committed on the abetment of accused Muhammad Umar and Ghulam Rasool and the same was witnessed by the complainant. Zahid Nadeem P.W.7. Rashid Ahmad and Mst. Jamila Bibi brothers and sister of the complainant."
4. Having considered the submissions made by petitioner's learned counsel and having gone through the prosecution evidence, we are of the view that the accused whose case was not free from doubt have already been acquitted by the trial Court. So far as the role attributed to petitioners is concerned, both the Courts have concurrently held that the case to their extent inspired confidence; that the testimony of witnesses was consistent on material particulars and that the eye-witnesses namely P.W.6 Kausar Tariq and P.W.7 Zahid Nadeem though related were natural witnesses. These witnesses were subject to lengthy cross-examination but their credibility insofar as the role attributed to the petitioners is concerned, could not be shattered. It was a broad-daylight occurrence. Both the accused were specifically named in the F.I.R. And they were attributed the fatal shots. During trial the prosecution was able to prove the story as set out in the F.I.R. Insofar as the petitioners were concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to refer to any piece of evidence which, if considered, could persuade this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of guilt. Coming to the argument that . The case of petitioner No,1 Muhammad Nasir has mitigating elements i.e, he was minor or that he was a student; we note that admittedly no evidence was led during trial to the effect that he was a student studying in a school or that he was a minor. This argument, therefore, has no substance.
5. For the afore-referred reasons, the impugned judgments are unexceptionable. This petition lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed and .