MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of Bashir Ahmad, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the ocular testimony of witnesses related to the deceased and inimical to the accused, alongside the recovery of the weapon, warranted a reappraisal of evidence, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the period spent as an under-trial prisoner. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the conviction, holding that the case was not a fit one for the reappraisal of evidence. However, the Court granted partial relief by directing that the petitioner be given the benefit of the period spent in custody as an under-trial prisoner under the relevant statutory provision. The principle laid down is that while the Supreme Court generally avoids reappraising evidence in cases of concurrent findings, it will ensure the mandatory application of statutory provisions regarding the calculation of sentences for under-trial detention.
- Is the Supreme Court required to reappraise evidence in a criminal case where there are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts?
- Is a convict entitled to the benefit of the period spent as an under-trial prisoner under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J. --Muhammad Younas petitioner seeks Leave to Appeal against the order of the High Court dated 29-10-1978, dismissing his appeal in a murder case. He was accused of stabbing Bashir Ahmad to death with a chhura (P. 5) at about 10-30 a. m. On 5-2-1978, in the area of Dulleyewala.
At the trial the prosecution relied on the testimony of the three eye--witnesses, namely, Muhammad Hussain (P. W. 7), Khobaib Ahmad (P. W. 8) and Ahmad Din (P. W. 9); recovery of the blood-stained chhura (P. 5) which was subsequently found to be stained with human blood; the medical evidence and the motive.
The accused pleaded innocence but did not produce any evidence in defence. The trial Court, however, relied on the prosecution evidence, convicted him under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High Court rejected his appeal and maintained his conviction and sentence vide the impugned judgment.
Fence the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner only urged that the learned courts below had not correctly appreciated the evidence and erred in relying on the testimony of the eye-witnesses who were related to the d2Ceased and inimical towards the accused and that the recovery of chhurra (P. 5), could not be relied upon in view of similar objections against the recovery witnesses. In fact he wanted us to hold that no weight can be attached to the ocular testimony and the recovery witnesses and reverse the finding of fact arrived at by the two courts below. He submitted next that the petitioner has not been given the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. Although, the petitioner had remained as an under-trial prisoner for quite sometime.
4. We have considered the aforementioned contentions. We do not consider this to be a fit case for reappraisal of evidences but in the circum--stances of this case, we feel, that, he is entitled to relief under section 382-B, Cr. P. C. With this observation the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- ZAFAR IQBAL Versus THE STATE 2000 YLR 1897
- AKBAR KHAN vs THE STATE 1991 P Cr. L J 845
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE 1984 P Cr. L J 152