SARFRAZ AHMAD vs The STATE
This criminal petition arose from the conviction of the petitioner for the kidnapping, sodomy, and murder of a minor child, Mst. Fatima, under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The trial court and the Federal Shariat Court had upheld the convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged crimes. The Court found the prosecution's narrative regarding the disposal of the body to be inherently unbelievable and fantastic. Furthermore, the Court determined that the evidence presented did not satisfy the requirements for a conviction under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as the alleged act did not constitute the disappearance of evidence. Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the petitioner by extending the benefit of the doubt.
- Does the act of moving a dead body in public view constitute the offence of causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction for murder and Zina-bil-Jabr be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence that is found to be inherently unbelievable?
- What is the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction when the prosecution relies entirely on circumstantial evidence?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 7, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--- According to the prosecution Sarfraz Ahmed petitioner had allegedly kidnapped a minor namely Mst. Fatima, aged about 3/4 years, and had committed sodomy with her and had then killed her. On the basis of the said allegations the petitioner had faced a trial and ultimately he was convicted by the trial court for the offences under sections 302(b) and 377, P.P.C. As well as for the offences under sections 12 and 7 of the of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.The petitioner challenged his convictions and sentences before the Federal Shariat Court through an appeal but his appeal was dismissed by the said Court. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have straightaway observed that the alleged kidnapping, commission of Zinabil-Jabr and murder of the minor namely Mst. Fatima had never been witnessed by anybody and the prosecution had utterly failed to bring any direct evidence on the record incriminating the petitioner vis-a-vis kidnapping, Zina-bil-jabr and murder.
The record shows that the only incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution was that the petitioner had allegedly removed the dead body of the deceased from a Bait hak in his occupation as a tenant to a plot of land and had thrown the deadbody in that plot within the view of some members of the complainant party. We have found the said allegation leveled against the petitioner to be fantastic, to say the least. It was hardly believable that the petitioner had a whole night available to him to get rid of the deadbody of the deceased but he had not availed that opportunity and had chosen to come out of his Baithak with the deadbody and to throw the deadbody in a plot within the view of the members of the complainant party. At best the prosecution had come up with an allegation that the petitioner had committed an offence under section 201, P.P.C. But we entertain serious doubts as to whether even the said provision of law was applicable to the case in hand because the act attributed to the petitioner did not amount to making any evidence disappear. Even if the allegation leveled by the prosecution in that respect is accepted as it is still that only amounted to creating of evidence or disclosure of evidence on the part of the petitioner rather than making any evidence disappear. No other evidence was available on the record incriminating the petitioner in any manner. In this view of the matter a conclusion is irresistible that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.,
3. For what has been discussed above this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and consequently the convictions and sentences of Sarfraz Ahmed petitioner/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.