Hafiz Muhammad Arshad and 3 others vs The State
This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of four appellants for robbery and murder following a daylight incident where one person was killed and two others injured. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of all appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding their identification in test identification parades and the proportionality of the death sentences imposed. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of three appellants but acquitted one appellant, Shehzad, extending him the benefit of doubt because his identification during the test identification parade failed to meet the required legal standard. Regarding the remaining appellants, the Court distinguished their roles: it maintained the death sentence for Hafiz Muhammad Arshad, who inflicted the fatal injury, but reduced the death sentences of Muhammad Ibrahim and Gulzar Ahmed to life imprisonment, noting their lesser roles in the fatal act. The Court affirmed the principle that while concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are generally respected, appellate courts must rigorously scrutinize identification evidence and ensure sentencing proportionality based on individual culpability.
- Does a failure to identify an accused with reference to a specific role in a test identification parade entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- Can the death sentence be reduced to life imprisonment for co-accused who did not inflict the fatal injury in a robbery-murder case?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences of life imprisonment?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 459, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 393, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J. --- Hafiz Muhammad Arshad appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2010, Muhammad Ibrahim appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2010, Shehzad appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2010 and Gulzar Ahmed appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2010 had been booked and tried in case F.I.R. No. 8 registered at Police Station, A-Division, Kasur on 10.1.2001 in respect of offences under Sections 302, 324 and 34, PPC with allegations that at about 7.00 a.m. on 10.1.2001 they had entered the house of the complainant party for the purpose of committing robbery and upon facing resistance they had killed one Yousaf Javed and had injured Muhammad lqbal (PW-19) and Sardar Muhammad Ahmed (PW-20). After a full-dressed trial the appellants were convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 302(b), 459, 394, 324 and 393, PPC read with Section 34, PPC and for the offence of murder they were sentenced to death each. The convictions and sentences of the appellants recorded by the Trial Court were subsequently upheld, maintained and confirmed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeals by leave of this Court granted on 9.2.2010.
2. Leave to appeal had been granted in these cases in order to reappraise the evidence and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have undertaken that exercise.
3. We note that the occurrence in this case had taken place in daylight and in support of its case the prosecution had produced three eye-witnesses before the Trial Court and they were Muhammad Iftikhar complainant (PW-18), Muhammad Iqbal (PW-19) and Sardar Muhammad Ahmed (PW-20) out of whom PW-19 and PW-20 were injured witnesses. All the said eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were natural witnesses being inmates of the relevant house or residents of the same locality and all the said eye-witnesses had made absolutely consistent statements before the Trial Court. As the culprits had not been nominated in the FIR., therefore, the appellants had been put up to test identification parades for the purposes of their identification by the eye-witnesses. The reports submitted before the Trial Court in connection with the said test identification parades show that during one of such parades Hafiz Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Ibrahim and Gulzar Ahmed appellants had been correctly picked up by Muhammad Iftikhar complainant (PW-18) and Sardar Muhammad Ahmed (PW-20) with reference to the roles played by them during the incident in issue whereas Muhammad Iqbal (PW-19) could not specify the roles of the relevant accused persons because of impairment of his eyesight due to an injury received by him on his eye during the incident in question. As regards Shehzad appellant a separate test identification parade had been conducted for the purpose of his identification by the eye-witnesses and we note that in that parade Muhammad Iqbal (PW-19) could not identify him and the remaining eye-witnesses had not identified him with reference to any particular roe played by him during the alleged occurrence. Both the Courts below had undertaken an exhaustive and in-depth analysis of the evidence available on the record and had then concurred in their conclusion regarding guilt of the appellants having been established to the hilt, We partially agree with the Courts below in that regard and find that although the case of the prosecution had indeed been proved beyond reasonable doubt against Hafiz Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Ibrahim and Gulzar Ahmed appellants yet its case against Shehzad appellant could not be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt because his identification during the test identification parade fell short of the required legal standard inasmuch as he had not been picked up with reference to any particular role played by hire during the occurrence in issue. In this view of the matter we have decided to extend the benefit of doubt to Shehzad appellant Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2010 is, therefore, allowed, the convictions and sentences of Shehzad appellant recorded and upheld by the Courts below are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to him. He shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.
4. As regards the case against Muhammad Ibrahim and Gulzar Ahmad appellants in Criminal Appeals No. 100 and 102 of 2010 we noted that Muhammad Ibrahim appellant had not caused any injury to Yousaf Javed deceased and the injury caused by Gulzar Ahmad appellant to Yousaf Javed deceased was on the latter's hand which injury had not proved fatal In this view of the matter we have decided to withhold the sentences of death from the said appellants on the charge of murder. Criminal Appeals No. 100 and 102 of 2010 are, therefore, dismissed to the extent of the said appellants' convictions and the sentences recorded under Sections 459, 394, 324 and 393, PPC read with Section 34, PPC but their sentences of death passed on the count of the charge under Section 302(b), PPC are reduced to imprisonment for life each. The remaining orders passed by the Courts below regarding the said appellants are maintained. All the sentences of imprisonment passed against the said appellants shall run concurrently to each other and the benefit under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be extended to them.
5. As far as Hafiz Muhammad Arshad appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2010 is concerned we note that he was responsible for causing the fatal fire-arm injury on the chest of Yousaf Javed deceased and his case is distinguishable from those against his co-convicts. it was a case of a daylight robbery wherein extreme highhandedness had been shown by this appellant as upon facing resistance from the complainant party he had fired at the deceased at the most vital part of his body ensuring his death. Such conduct displayed by this appellant detracts from any sympathy to be shown to him in the matter of his sentence. The usual wages of a crime of murder is death and in the circumstances of the case this appellant deserves no less. Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2010 is, therefore, dismissed.