Aamir Hanif and another vs State etc
This criminal matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that maintained the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of his brother-in-law and murderous assault upon an eyewitness, while altering the death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of the injured eyewitness, and the validity of the conviction based on the prosecution's narrative of the incident. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the prompt reporting of the crime, the consistency of the medical evidence with the recovered weapon, and the reliability of the injured eyewitness. The Court rejected the defense's theory of substitution as unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal, affirming both the conviction and the quantum of sentence imposed by the High Court. The judgment reinforces the principle that where prosecution evidence is consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical and forensic reports, the courts below are justified in maintaining a conviction.
- Whether an injured eyewitness who has no motive to falsely implicate the accused can be considered a reliable witness?
- Does the failure of the defense to substantiate a theory of substitution in cross-examination render the prosecution's case credible?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the medical evidence, including autopsy and injury reports, corroborates the eyewitness testimony and the recovery of the weapon?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.--Aamir Hanif, petitioner , along with his sister Samina Bibi, since acquitted, was indicted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Mehboob Alam, no other than his brother-in-law and for murderous assault upon Hakeem Nazeer Ahmad (PW-8) on 22.2.2008 at 6:00 p.m. within the remit of Police Station Karana District Sargodha. The incident was reported on the spot by deceased's father Manzoor Ali (PW-7) at 5:30 p.m. It is alleged that the deceased was not getting along well with his wife and in this backdrop on the fateful day family elders gathered to settle the differences; petitioner was also in the session and during the conversation after exhortation repeatedly targeted the deceased with a .30 caliber pistol; Hakeem Nazeer Ahmad PW tried to intervene but was shot instead. Casualties were attended; the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot while Hakeem Nazeer Ahmed (PW-8) was shifted to the hospital; he was medically examined at 5:30 p.m. followed by deceased's autopsy at 9:30 p.m. Deceased's wife Mst. Samina Bibi was arrayed as accused for abetment on the basis of supplementary statement dated 28.2.2008. Petitioner was arrested on 4.3.2008; pursuant to a disclosure on 8.3.2008 he led to the recovery of a .30 caliber pistol (P-1). Trial concluded on 13.11.2008 in petitioner's conviction under clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 as well as under Section 324 of the Code ibid; he was sentenced to death and imprisonment on coordinate charge; Mst.
Samina Bibi was acquitted vide the same judgment. The High Court maintained petitioner's conviction albeit with alteration of death penalty into imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 03.07.2013, vires whereof are being challenged by the convict through a jail petition; the complainant seeks reversal of death penalty as well as Samina Bibi's acquittal; issues bound by a common thread are being decided through this single judgment.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. The convict is unrepresented and for that we have gone through the entire record with caution and curiosity .
Relationship inter se the deceased and the convict alongside his co-accused is admitted at all hands. Though no casing was secured from the spot, nonetheless, blood taken therefrom is forensically established that of human origin; that confirms the venue. Excluding the strained relations between the spouses, blessed with three siblings there was no motive left to bring the convict face to face with his brother-in-law . Autopsy report confirms three entry wounds, consistent with the weapon recovered on convict's disclosure. Events are recorded with a remarkable promptitude. Occurrence took place at 4:00 p.m; it is reported after one and half hour with medico legal examination of the injured soon thereafter; autopsy at 9:30 p.m. in a non-tertiary hospital cannot be viewed as delayed. Hakeem Nazeer Ahmed (PW-8), with a stamp of injury , in his early seven ties, is an independent witness; he was requested to join reconciliation when he came out of a nearby mosque after prayer; he has no axe to grind and can be believed without demur . Witnesses are in a comfortable unison on all the relevant details of the incident; cross-examination on the complainant, though inordinately lengthy , merely sets up a case of substitution that merits outright rejection; deceased's murder by his brother Ilyas and his son Azhar , as suggested by the defence, is a story that may not find a buyer. Even the convict himself abandoned the plea in his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Even a most stringent appraisal of prosecution evidence does not admit any space to entertain any hypothesis other than convict's guilt. View taken by the Courts below being well within the remit of law does not call for interference. Quantum of senten ce opted by the High Court has also been found by us as a conscionable wage. Petitions fail. Leave declined.