Nasir alias Nasrullah The State vs The State Nasir alias Nasrullah
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence for the murder of a thirteen-year-old boy. The prosecution alleged that the appellant murdered the deceased following a dispute over credit at a grocery shop. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to death. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence and medical testimony sufficiently established guilt and whether the death penalty was the appropriate sentence given the circumstances. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular account of the father and another witness consistent and credible, supported by medical evidence. However, the Court held that the extreme violence inflicted was disproportionate to the alleged motive of a minor credit dispute, and noted that the immediate circumstances preceding the crime remained unclear. Consequently, the Court declined to confirm the death sentence, converting it to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that where the motive is disproportionate to the violence and the immediate circumstances of the crime are shrouded in mystery, the death penalty may be commuted to life imprisonment.
- Can the death penalty be commuted to life imprisonment when the violence inflicted is disproportionate to the alleged motive?
- Is the testimony of a father regarding the murder of his son considered credible in the absence of evidence suggesting he would falsely implicate an innocent person?
- Does the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to a sentence of life imprisonment?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J:- Muhammad Shafique, aged about thirteen, was stabbed to death within the area of village 18/AWM situating at a distance of four Furlong from Police Station Harrapa on 30-10-2007 at 1:00 p.m. The incident was reported by his father Noor Samand (PW4) through complaint Ex.PA/1 recorded by Muhammad Siddique, SI (PW-10) 2:45 p.m. At Council-Morr.
According to the prosecution case, Noor Samand (PW-4), a cultivator also ran a grocery shop where he was assisted by the deceased. On the fateful day at about 11:00 a.m, Nasir alias Nasrullah, appellant visited the shop to purchase articles on credit, however, declined by the deceased. The appellant annoyed by refusal left the shop after extending threat. In the latter part of the day, the deceased went to fetch fodder on a donkey-cart belonging to one Hazir and it was at about 1:00 p.m. He was returning home after leaving the cart with its owner; as he passed by field of the appellant, he was confronted by him with a dagger, after a brief exhortation, dealt multiple blows in quick succession within the view of Noor Samand (PW-4), Shah Behram (PW-5) and Tanvir; the witnesses attempted to intercept the appellant, who, however, fled from the scene while brandishing the weapon. The deceased in injured condition was shifted to RHC, however, succumbed to his injuries on way. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Mahmood-ulHassan (PW-9) on the following day at 8:00 a.m; it is a case of awfully massive violence; the deceased sustained as many as ten incised wounds on various parts of his body; bleeding from rectum was observed with tear on external anal margins accompanying laceration on anal mucosa. For seminal detection, two swa bs were taken. From spot inspection, bloodstained earth was secured vide inventory Ex.PC; as per forensic reports, it was found stained with blood of human origin. The appellant was arrested on 11-11-2007 and pursuant to a disclosure led to the recovery of bloodstained dagger P-1 on 14-11-2007, found stained with blood of human origin; after completion of investigation, the appellant was sent to face trial before a learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Sahiwal, who indicted him on 2-6-2008 for homicide; the appellant claimed trial, pursuant whereto, the prosecution produced as many as ten witnesses to drive home charge besides relying upon forensic reports, confronted with a denial; according to the appellant, it was an un-witnessed occurrence. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 24-10-2009 convicted the appellant under Section 302 (b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to death with compensation of Rs.100,000/- or to undergo six months SI in the event of default, vires whereof, are being challenged through Crl.
Appeal No.811 of 2009. The State seeks confirmation of death penalty through M.R. No.134 of 2009; both are being decided through this single judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is an un-witnessed occurrence and the appellant has been prosecuted and sentenced on mere suspicion; that had the witnesses been present at the spot, they could have easily apprehended the appellant and that alleged motive is not only inadequate but false as well. Contrarily, learned Law Officer has defended the impugned judgment and prays for confirmation of death penalty which according to him would meet the ends of justice given the magnitude of violence inflicted upon the deceased, a young boy of hardly 13 years of age.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Ocular account furnished by Noor Samand (PW-4) and Shah Bahram (PW-5) is consistent and straightforward on all the salient aspects of the occurrence, a daylight affair with a single accused; both of them are from the locality and certainly a father is not expected to substitute assassin of his son with an innocent person. Medical evidence is in line with the ocular accused as well and durations given therein correspond with the time of occurrence given in complaint Ex.PA/1. These two components of the prosecution case comfortably sustain the charge and implicit reliance can be placed thereon without reservation. Nothing could be solicited from these two witnesses which may even obliquely discredit their credibility. Every hypothesis of innocence stands excluded, therefore, Crl. Appeal No.811 of 2009 is dismissed. However, the question of sentence requires a serious consideration. Single accused inflicting shockingly massive violence when taken in the backdrop of alleged motive is not found synchronized with probability. The appellant exhibited an extremely violent conduct, disproportionate to the reason cited for the crime; mere refusal to extend credit would not provoke such a violent backlash. Result of seminal detection is not on the file nor there is any opinion about carnal knowledge. The indictment is of homicide alone. How the appellant anticipated the arrival of the deceased is really intriguing? What immediately preceded the occurrence remains shrouded in mystery? All these aspects taken together cumulatively make out a case for conversion of death penalty into imprisonment for life which is an alternate sentence and would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. Relying upon the case of Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din alias Haji Babu vs. The State (2014 SCM R 1034), we alter the penalty of death into imprisonment for life; benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C shall be extended to the appellant. Amount of compensation/fine and consequences in case of default are kept intact.
Murder Reference No. 134 of 2009 is answered in NEGATIVE and death sentence awarded to the appellant is NOT CONFIRMED. 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.