FAISAL MEHMOOD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a jail petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence of death on six counts under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his step-mother and her children. The core legal question concerns the adequacy and reliability of the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution, namely an extra-judicial confession and last-seen evidence, in the absence of any eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the evidence produced by the prosecution was sufficient to maintain the petitioner's conviction and death sentence. The key principle laid down is that conviction for capital punishment based purely on circumstantial evidence such as extra-judicial confessions and last-seen testimony requires thorough examination by the apex court to satisfy the standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether extra-judicial confession and last-seen evidence are sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without corroborative eye-witness accounts?
- Can a conviction of death on multiple counts be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to re-examine the adequacy of evidence in a capital punishment case?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' NASIR-UL-MULK, J.---The conviction and sentence of death on six counts under section 302(b), P.P.C. Of the petitioner was upheld by the Lahore High Court on 9-6-2009, against which the petitioner his filed this jail petition for leave to appeal.
2. The petitioner is alleged to have murdered his step mother, Mst. Shafia Bibi and her children all of tender age and the report to the police was made by the petitioner's father, Muhammad Ajaib. The complainant did not claim to be an eye-witness of the occurrence and had stated that he was a chowkidar and at the time of the incident, was away from the house when he was informed about the incident. The motive for the offence disclosed by the complainant was that the petitioner, whose mother had passed away before the complainant contracted second marriage, remained unhappy with his step-mother and wanted to grab his land.
3. We heard Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti,.Learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and also 'examined the evidence. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the prosecution case is based on the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the petitioner before Muhammad Aslam (P.W.10) and the last seen evidence furnished by Mushtaq Ahmed (P.W.7).
4. We grant leave to appeal to examine whether the evidence produced by the prosecution was adequate to maintain the petitioner's conviction and sentence. 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.