Shaukat Hussain vs State
This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the appellant's conviction for the homicide of his wife. The prosecution alleged the appellant strangulated his wife, witnessed by the complainant and others. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the inconsistencies between the ocular account and medical evidence, and the absence of the deceased's father as a witness. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with doubts. The Court noted that while Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, places a heavy onus on a husband to explain a wife's death in their home, the appellant's explanation, when weighed against the evidence, created reasonable doubt. Specifically, the autopsy report lacked evidence of ligature marks consistent with strangulation, and the failure of four witnesses to intervene during the alleged assault was improbable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish the manner of death as alleged.
- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the deceased's father as a witness create a reasonable doubt in a murder case?
- Can a conviction for strangulation be sustained when the autopsy report shows no ligature marks?
- What is the effect of the acquittal of a co-accused on the prosecution's case against the remaining appellant?
- How does the burden of proof under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply to the death of a wife within the matrimonial home?
- Article 122, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
ORDER
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. Through leave of the Court impugned herein is judgment dated 06.05.2015 by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench Multan whereby guilty verdict returned by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Rajanpur in a case of homicide vide judgment dated 30.06.2003 was maintained.
It is alleged that the appellant, suspecting illicit liaison, strangulated Afshan Batool, no other than his better half, inside his home, at 10:00 p.m. on 15.11.2000. Incident was reported shortly after midnight by deceased's paternal uncle Ghulam Shabbir (PW-7); according to him, the deceased, in the backdrop of above acrimony, was staying with her parents wherefrom the appellant after mediation took her to his home; complainant and his companion followed him and allegedly witnessed the assault at 10:00 p.m; it is their case that the appellant along with his brother Mushtaq Hussain, since acquitted, placed a noose around the neck with Dopatta (P-7) and wire (P-8) and it is through constriction that the deceased was done to death within their view.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that prosecution case on the face of it is extremely improbable inasmuch as not only the father of the deceased abstained from the witness box but medical evidence is also inconsistent with the ocular account. Arrival of the witnesses exactly at the fateful point -of time when the deceased was allegedly being strangulated is a coincidence that seldom occur, argued the learned counsel. According to him, the position taken by the appellant sounds more convincing so as to let off him, particularly after prosecution's failure qua identically placed co-accused. The learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned judgment.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. In incidents of domestic violence moreso in the event of homicidal death of a wife in the house of her husband a heavy onus is cast upon the latter to satisfactorily explain circumstances leading to the. tragedy. See Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. However, in the present case, explanation furnished by the appellant, when juxtaposed with the prosecution evidence, warrants a serious reconsideration; according to him, the deceased had happily rejoined him, albeit to the annoyance of the complainant who otherwise harboured a grudge and desired to see the marriage on the rocks; in the nutshell, he shifted the blame on the complainant. What puts us on caution is absence of deceased's father from the scene; he neither joined the investigative process nor opted to be in the witness-box; he would have been prosecution's best choice to prove both desertion as well as calamity that struck his daughter; his silence is most intriguing, lending support, in retrospect, to the position taken by the appellant. Prosecution story is further negated by the autopsy report wherein on the neck a ligature mark is conspicuous by its absence; there is one bruise accompanied by four abrasion marks with an intact hyoid bone; though the death is opined as asphyxial, nonetheless, it does not appear to have occurred in the manner suggested in the crime report. It is also hard to believe that the witnesses four in number could not have intervened to rescue the deceased, statedly struggling to resist the assault within their view, close distanced at the crime scene. Acquittal of co-accused, without challenge, is yet another predicament confronting the prosecution. Fraught with doubts, position taken by the appellant cannot be dismissed without being imprudent. Appeal is allowed; impugned judgment dated 06.05.2015 is set aside; the appellant is acquitted from the charge and shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained.