ALLAH BAKHSH Versus State
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Allah Bakhsh against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which dismissed his criminal appeal and maintained his death sentence for the murder of Master Najeebullah, along with answering the murder reference in the affirmative. The core legal question concerns the legality of the concurrent findings of guilt based on ocular testimony, a judicial confessional statement, the petitioner's admission at the charge stage, medical evidence, and motive, and whether mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a reduction of sentence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were unexceptionable as the prosecution successfully established its case through multiple corroborative pieces of evidence, including the voluntary confession and admission of guilt. The court laid down the principle that an accused's clear admission of guilt at the time of framing of the charge, coupled with a consistent judicial confession and supporting ocular and medical evidence, provides a sound legal basis for upholding a murder conviction and death sentence without interference.
- Whether an accused's admission of guilt at the time of framing of the charge can be used to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Does a voluntary judicial confessional statement corroborate ocular and medical evidence to maintain a death sentence?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court without proof of illegality, non-reading, or misreading of evidence?
- Is a previous dispute between parties considered a sufficient mitigating circumstance to reduce a sentence of death to life imprisonment?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302(a), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.-- -Petitioner Allah Bakhsh seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 14-7-2003 passed by learned Division Bench of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta whereby Criminal Jail Appeal No.8 of 2003 filed by him was dismissed and sentence of death awarded by the trial court was maintained. Murder Reference No.1 of 2003 was also answered in affirmative.
2. Briefly, stated facts leading to the filing of instant petition are that a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. was registered vide F.I.R. No.3/2002 dated 27-1-2002 at Levies Station Ahmedwal of District Chagai on the written report of complainant Shafi Muhammad wherein it was alleged that on the same day at about 12 noon, his son Master Najeebullah went to ease himself at some distance where he was fired at by petitioner Allah Bakhsh. Master Najeebullah succumbed to the injuries while being shifted to the hospital for treatment. It was also alleged in the F.I.R. that petitioner has murdered the deceased at the instigation of his father Mazar Khan.
3. During investigation police recovered 4 empties of .303 bore from the place of occurrence and also took into possession blood stained earth. Petitioner after his arrest led to the recovery of rifle .303 and a live cartridge from inside his house. On 30-10-2002 petitioner confessed his guilt and his confessional statement was recorded by Judicial Magistrate, Nushki. On completion of investigation petitioner and his father were sent up to face trial before the court of Sessions Judge, Nushki. On 15-3-2002 Trial Court framed the charge against the petitioner who while answering the charge admitted to have killed deceased Master Najeebullah as he used to tease him.
4. To prove its guilt, the prosecution examined eight witnesses in all.
5. In their statements recorded under section 342 Cr. P.C. petitioner and acquitted accused Mazhar Khan denied the case of prosecution and pleaded innocence. They neither examined themselves on Oath as required under section 340(2) Cr. P.C. nor led any evidence in their defence.
6. On the conclusion of trial, trial Court having found petitioner guilty of the offence, convicted him under' section 302(a), P.P.C. and sentenced him to death while acquitted his father Mazar Khan.
7. We have heard Mr. Javed Aziz Sindhu, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the record and p the case in minute particulars.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that trial court as well as the Appellate Court have erred in convicting sentencing the petitioner. According to him, there was dispute in between the parties which was sufficient mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of petitioner.
9. We are not persuaded with the contentions of learnt the petitioner mainly for the reason that prosecution in order to establish its case has relied upon the ocular testimony of P.W.6 Khalilullah confessional statement of petitioner, his admission in the trial at the time of framing of charge, medical evidence and motive.
10. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to reproduce the admission of petitioner made at the time of framing of chart
To substantiate further, the particular stance of the petitioner taken in his confessional statement is also reproduced as um
11. It is pertinent to note that immediately after arrest petitioner volunteered to confess the guilt which was recorded by Judicial Magistrate Nushki in which he categorically admitted to have killed Master Najeebullah. Irrespective of above, learned counsel petitioner could not point out any illegality, non-reading or misreading of evidence. We also do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two courts below.
12. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of force is c leave to appeal refused.
M.H. /A-26/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.