MUHAMMAD TARIQ RAMZAN vs The STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder, following his trial alongside co-accused who were acquitted. The prosecution alleged the appellant and a co-accused shot the deceased, initially citing a motive related to blasphemy. While the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court, the High Court altered the sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined the ocular evidence provided by eyewitnesses, finding their presence at the scene credible and their testimony consistent, despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the blasphemy charge. The Court held that the ocular account was sufficient to sustain the murder conviction independently of the failed motive. However, the Court ruled that the failure to prove the blasphemy charge undermined the motive, thereby necessitating the acquittal of the appellant under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, but set aside the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, while upholding the sentence of life imprisonment.
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular evidence when the alleged motive fails?
- Does the failure to prove a specific motive, such as blasphemy, necessitate acquittal under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Is the presence of eyewitnesses at a crime scene in a small locality sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of evidence of animus?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J. Muhammad Tariq Ramzan, appellant tried alongside his real brothers Zahid Ramzan and Abid Ramzan, since acquitted, was returned a guilty verdict by the learned Special Judge Anti- Terrorism Court-I, Faisalabad, in the absence of Tahir alias Mana and Nazar Abbas, co-accused, since proceeded against as proclaimed offenders; alongside Tahir alias Mana, he is attributed fire shots to Muhammad Adeel deceased within the remit of Police Station Mansoorabad, District Faisalabad on 16.8.201 1 at 2:30 p.m. It is prosecution's case that the accused used blasphemous and derogatory language against the holy personage and as the deceased admonished them, they harboured a grudge, finally settled on the fateful day. The accused were sent to face trial on both charges separat ely and it is admitted at all hands that they have been acquitted from the charges of blasphemy . According to the prosecution, the appellant along with Tahir alias Mana targeted the deceased with multiple fire shots; autopsy report confirmed six entry wounds with corresponding exits. Arrested on 29.8.201 1, the appellant pursuant to a disclosure, led to the recovery of .30 caliber pistol P-3, found wedded with two of the casings secured from the spot. Upon conclusion of investigation, indicted before the learned Special Judge, he alongside the co-accused claimed trial which culminated into his convict ion with penalty of death on two counts vide judgment dated 15.12.201 1; his appeal failed on all counts, however , with alteration of penalty of death into imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 19.01.2015, vires whereo f are being challenged by leave of, the Court.
2. Acquittal of co-accused as well as failure of case of blasphemy besides the improbable presence of the witnesses at the relevant time have been pressed into service by Mr. Sagheer Ahmad Qadri, ASC to argue that it would be unsafe to maintain the judgment; contrarily defended by the learned Law Of ficer.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The prosecution case is primarily structured upon ocular account furnished by Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Iqbar , PWs; we are not impressed by the argument that they had no business at the crime scene, a small grocery outlet in the village; both of them from the same neighbourhood, i.e. Chak No.203/RB, Mananwala Faisalabad and as such in the absence of strong and positive evidence, to sugg est the contrary , their presence cannot be viewed with suspicion. On an independent analysis of their statements, they are found in a comfortable unison on all the salient details of the occurrence as well as the issues collatera l therewith nor there is even an oblique reference to any animus, propelling them to falsely implicate the appellan t in a small locality within broad daylight. Though held inconsequential by the High Court, nonetheless, weapon recovered on appellant's disclosure is found consistent with the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased. Notwithstanding, prosecution's failure on the charges of blasphemy , the ocular account itself independently is found by us sufficient to sustain the charge.
The High Court has already exercised caution with regard to quantum of sentence to be exacted from the appellant. The evidence points inexorably upon appellant's culpability , leaving no space to entertain any hypothesis of his innocence, however , with failure of charges of blasphemy , the motive part of prosecution case plunges into darkness that casts away the charge under section 7(a) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. Consequently , while maintaining appellant's conviction under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, he is acquitted from the charge under section 7 of the Act ibid; amount of compensation and consequences in the event of default are kept intact with benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Criminal appeal is partly allowed in the terms noted above.