MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus State
This matter arises from a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the criminal appeal of the petitioner and upheld his conviction and sentence of death under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with compensation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony, the sufficiency of identification in a late-night domestic occurrence, and the plausibility of the defence plea regarding nocturnal homicide. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on the testimonies of natural and reliable eyewitnesses whose presence at the scene was established, and that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution timeline without material contradictions. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that the testimony of a natural witness in a domestic murder, when unimpeached and supported by prompt reporting and medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and interference with concurrent factual findings is unwarranted absent misreading or non-reading of evidence.
- Whether the testimony of a natural eyewitness in a domestic murder case is sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration?
- Does a discrepancy in the medical post-mortem duration alone render the prosecution's time of occurrence doubtful?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding a criminal conviction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
- Whether an accused can successfully raise a defence of alternative homicide without establishing the motive or presence of alleged third parties?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution has been directed against the judgment, dated 19-1-2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby criminal appeal filed by the petitioner against the conviction and sentence of death awarded to him under section 302(b), P.P.C. with direction to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, was dismissed.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that on 10-9-2000 at about 7-30 p.m. he armed with .12 bore carbine entered into the house of Muhammad Iqbal, complainant and in presence of the inmates of the house fired a shot at Mst. Yasmin sister of complainant, as a result of which she sustained an injury on back of her shoulder and succumbed to the injury at the spot.
3. The motive for the occurrence as stated was that petitioner had demanded the hand of Mst. Yasmin but her parents did not agree to the proposal, whereupon he nourishing grudge in his mind, committed murder of Mst. Yasmin.
4. The prosecution mainly relied upon the ocular account furnished by Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.6), brother of deceased and Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.7), brother-in-law of the complainant, lady doctor Afia Naz Aalam (P.W.2) who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and the reports of the Chemical Examiner, Serologist and Fire-arm Expert. The petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denying the charge, pleaded that the complainant party themselves having done Mst. Yasmin to death in their house, involved him in her murder.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the prosecution version the occurrence had taken place in the house of complainant at 7-30 p.m. but no evidence was brought on record regarding the identification of the assailant and the duration of post-mortem, from 6 to 18 hours, shown in the medical evidence, would suggest that occurrence took place after midnight and in view thereof the defence version that the complainant party having seen the deceased in objectionable position with one Gulzar Shah committed her murder in their home was more plausible. In nutshell, learned counsel argued that the circumstances leading to the occurrence would suggest sufficient force in the defence version and in view of the doubt arising regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution version, the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner was not sustainable.
6. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed this petition with the assertion that deceased was murdered in her house and the witnesses being inmate of the house, were most natural witnesses who have no enmity or motive against the petitioner to implicate him in the case.
7. The sad incident happened in the house of the complainant in Chak No.323-EB situated at the distance of 10 miles from Police Station Fateh Shah and report was lodged at midnight time with maximum promptitude. There was no conflict of the time of occurrence given in the F.I.R. and the medical evidence, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the occurrence was unwitnessed which had taken place late in the night, was unfounded. Mst. Yasmin, sister of Muhammad Iqbal was murdered in the house of complainant and he being most natural witness of the occurrence, has narrated the facts in each detail, without any material contradiction or discrepancy, therefore, the observation of the High Court that even if evidence of Muhammad Iqbal son of Jan Muhammad (P.W.7) would have been excluded from consideration, the testimony of complainant being not suffering from any disability which was duly supported by the medical evidence would alone be sufficient to sustain the conviction is unexceptional. This may be noted that the petitioner was not stranger to the family, therefore, his identity was unmistaken and it would not appeal to mind that the complainant having seen the deceased in objectionable position with one Gulzar Shah done her to death but spared said Gulzar Shah.
8. The analysis of the prosecution evidence in entirety, would show that the charge against the petitioner was proved beyond doubt and the concurrent findings of the two Courts regarding his guilt, being based on the evidence of most natural witnesses, would not call for interference of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of the evidence to make out a case for grant of leave either on merits or on the quantum of sentence.
9. In the light of the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Leave is refused.
S.M.B./M-203/SC Petition dismissed.