MUHAMMAD YOUNAS Versus THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, convicting the appellants under sections 302(b)/34, 460/34, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and house-trespass or house-breaking by night during a dacoity, along with a connected murder reference for confirmation of death sentences. The core legal question involves the appraisal of evidence in an un-witnessed blind murder case where the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, recoveries, and statements. Upon reviewing the record and the merits of the case, the Lahore High Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from lack of independent corroboration, un-witnessed circumstances, and unconvincing links to the accused, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and the upholding of the acquittal and dismissal principles regarding un-witnessed occurrences. The key principle laid down is that in un-witnessed blind murder cases, convictions cannot be sustained without robust and reliable independent corroboration of incriminating circumstances and recoveries.
- Can a conviction for murder in an un-witnessed blind murder case be sustained solely on weak circumstantial evidence without independent corroboration?
- Whether recoveries of stolen articles and weapons in the absence of trustworthy supporting evidence are sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- How should an appellate court evaluate a judgment of conviction rendered by a trial court in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J. ‑‑‑ This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 197/J of 2000 filed by k1uhammad Younas, Criminal Appeal No. 198/J of 2000' filed by Rashid Muhammad, Criminal Appeal No. 1995 of 2000 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1990/J of 2000 filed by Muhammad Akram, all the four appellants through jail who were convicted and sentenced by Judge, Anti‑Terrorism Court, Faisalabad vide judgment, dated 4‑12‑1999 as under:‑‑
Muhammad Akram Muhammad Rafique Rashid Muhammad and Muhammad Younas appellants.‑‑‑ Death under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 each and in default 7 years' R.I. Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,010 each, in default 7 years' R.I. under section 460/34, P.P..C. and 3 year' R.I. and to 'pay a fine of Rs.10,000, in default 9 months' R.I. under section 411, P.P.C.
Murder Reference No.488/T of 1999 for confirmation and death sentence or otherwise shall also be replied through this single judgment.
2. Occurrence in this case had taken place during the night between 16th and 17th March, 1996 at a distance of 10 miles from Police Station Sadar Chiniot, District Jhang while the matter was reported, through written complaint Exh.P.D. by Muhammad Munir Alam, complainant at 10‑30 a.m. on 17‑3‑1996 and the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.D./1 was recorded by Noor Sultan, Head Constable.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Muhammad Javaid Alam, brother of the complainant Muhammad Munir Alam being Dispenser was residing in a quarter adjacent to Dispensary Mauza Bukharian. A day prior to the occurrence, his wife had gone to Faisalabad whereas Muhammad Javaid was alone at his quarter. On the day of occurrence the complainant received an information that the dead body of Muhammad Javed Alam was found lying in the kitchen and on the dead body some injuries were also found.
4. After registration of the formal F.I.R. investigation of the case was taken over by Muhammad Sadiq, Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.16). He went to the place of occurrence, inspected the spot; took into possession blood‑stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.F., 3 crime‑empties were also recovered from the spot‑vide memo. Exh.P.E., rough site plan was Exh.P.T., he prepared injury statement Exh.P.U.; inquest report Exh. P. V. of the deceased, recorded statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. took into possession the last‑worn clothes of the deceased vide memo. Exh.P.A. and on 24‑6‑1999 he arrested Muhammad Akram, Rashid and Rafique, accused. On 30‑6‑1998 Akram accused led to the recovery of tape‑recorder, Juicer machine and other articles which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.Q. on the same day Muhammad Younas led to the recovery of stolen articles and blood stained hatchet P.14 which were taken into custody vide memo. Exh.P.R., sandwich machines P.15 was also taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.S. and after completion of the remaining formal investigation, all the four accused were challaned to face the trial.
5. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 16 witnesses in all; then the learned P.P. tendered in evidence report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.X., report of the Serologist Exh.P.Y. and. closed the prosecution case. Thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded innocence and false implication. However, after conclusion of the trial, the accused were convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5‑A. Learned counsel for the appellants after having read the entire prosecution evidence and other material available on record submits that it was an un-witnessed occurrence; it was a blind murder case; nobody recorded. They denied the allegation and claimed their innocence and false involvement.
The trial culminated into acquittal of the accused. Niamat Ali appellant filed petition for special leave to appeal and this Court vide order, dated 29‑11‑1994 issued notice only to the extent of Ghulam Abbas and Farzand Ali respondents.
Despite repeated calls nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants. Even on the last date which was 6‑11‑2001 learned counsel for the appellant was not in attendance, therefore, with the assistance of the learned State counsel and counsel representing the respondents, we have perused the record and are deciding base on merits.
Accused‑respondents were declared innocent in successive investigations. It was found that the occurrence took place in the field sometime early in the morning. It was un-witnessed occurrence. Weapons of offence were also not recovered from the possession of the accused. Previous enmity of registration of criminal case was also admitted by the complainant P. W.3 Niamat Ali P. W.3 is father of Liaquat Ali P. W.7. Both the witnesses are inimical towards the accused/respondents and their statements have not been corroborated from any other independent source. The reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for acquittal of accused are borne out from the record. After reappraisal of the evidence we find that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court is just, proper, up to the norms and standard laid down by the Superior Courts. The appeal is dismissed having no force.
J.A.M./N‑135/L Appeal dismissed.