Muhammad Jamshaid and another vs The State and others
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of Mirza Yaqoob under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on the circumstance that the deceased's dead-body was recovered from a house jointly inhabited by the appellant and other family members, in the absence of any eye-witnesses or established motive. The Supreme Court held that the approach of the lower courts was speculative, reiterating that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's specific role. The Court laid down the principle that mere recovery of a dead-body from a shared family house, without further proof of the accused's active participation or incriminating circumstances, is insufficient to secure a conviction, thereby allowing the appeal, setting aside the lower judgments, and acquitting the appellant on the benefit of the doubt.
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the circumstance that the dead-body of the deceased was found inside a house inhabited by the accused and other family members?
- Is suspicion, no matter how grave or strong, a proper substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
- What is the effect on the prosecution's case when the alleged motive is disbelieved and the murder is completely unwitnessed?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. 'Criminal Appeal No, 86 of 2012 ' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J. --- Muhammad Jamshaid appellant was booked and tried in case F.I.R. No, 346 registered at Police Station Banni, District Rawalpindi on 12.07.2005 for an offence under 'Section 302, PPC read with Section 34, P.P.C. in respect of an alleged murder of one Mirza Yaqoob.
2. After a full-dressed trial the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302(b), P.P.C. vide judgment dated 04.12.2006 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- to the heirs of the deceased by way of compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The benefit under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence before the Lahore High Court, Lahore through Criminal Appeal No, 233 of 2007 which was dismissed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the said Court vide judgment dated 06.06.2011. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 14.12.2012.
3. 2.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance.
4. 3.According to the prosecution Mirza Yaqoob deceased was settled in the United Kingdom and had married a number of times including with a lady who was a sister of the present appellant but admittedly the 'said marriage had resulted in a separation and at the relevant time, while on a visit to Pakistan, the deceased was staying in a Guest House but his dead-body had been found in the house of the appellant which house was inhabited by many other members of the appellant's family. It is not disputed that the murder in issue had remained un witnessed. The 'motive set up by the prosecution had been disbelieved and ruled out of consideration by the Trial Court and the only circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was that the dead-body of the deceased had been found inside the house of the appellant and, hence, it was concluded by the Courts below that it must be none other than the present appellant who had done the deceased to death. We have found such an approach adopted by the Courts below to be nothing but speculative. It is trite that suspicion howsoever grave or strong can never be a proper substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt required in a criminal case. The house in issue was admittedly inhabited by many other members of the appellant's family. The role played by the appellant in the incident in issue had never become available on the record and it had never been disclosed or alleged by the prosecution as to under what circumstances the deceased had been done to death. It has, thus, surprised us to learn that not only the Trial Court but also the High Court had concluded that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We expect the Courts below to do better in future.
5. 4.For what has been discussed above a conclusion is inescapable that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the conviction and sentence of the 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.
6. 'Criminal Appeal No, 462 of 2012 5.None has entered appearance to prosecute this appeal on behalf of the appellant/complainant nor any request has been received seeking an adjournment. We have already concluded in our judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No, 86 of 2012 today that the prosecution had failed to prove its case and, thus, there is hardly any occasion left for us to enhance respondent No, 1's sentence or to convert respondent No, 2's acquittal into conviction. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The bail bonds and sureties of respondents No, 1 and 2, if any, shall stand discharged.