LIAQAT ALI Versus State
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court upon the appellant for the murder of his mother-in-law. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular testimony and motive, and whether the death sentence was justified. The Court held that the prosecution's case was proven, finding the testimony of the eye-witnesses consistent, natural, and trustworthy, which was further corroborated by medical evidence and the established motive of domestic discord. Although the Court excluded the recovery of the weapon from consideration due to the absence of forensic analysis, it determined that the remaining evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court concluded that the appellant, having arrived armed and committed the murder of an innocent person, was not entitled to leniency regarding the sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the death sentence was confirmed. The judgment reinforces the principle that credible ocular evidence, when supported by medical findings and motive, remains sufficient for conviction even in the absence of forensic corroboration of weapon recovery.
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular evidence when forensic analysis of the recovered weapon is absent?
- Is the testimony of a relative and a friend considered reliable in a murder trial if their presence at the scene is natural?
- Does the lack of forensic confirmation of a weapon recovery invalidate the entire prosecution case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.7-J of 2002 filed by Liaqat Ali, who faced trial in case F.I.R. No.96, registered at Police Station Pipplan, Mianwali, on 2-9-1999, for offence under section 302, P.P.C., before learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali, who after conclusion of trial, vide his judgment, dated 17-3-2001 convicted the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to death with compensation of Rs.50,000 or in default six months' S.I.
2. Murder Reference No.338 of 2001 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of appellant shall also be disposed of through this single judgment.
3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in F.T.R. Exh.P.G. narrated by Shaukat Ali (complainant/P.W.6) are that his sister Mst. Idreesan Bibi was married with Liaqat Ali and sister of Liaqat Ali Mst. Salma Bibi was married with brother of the complainant in Watta Satta about 2-1/2 years prior to the occurrence. Due to some differences sister of the complainant came back to her parents' house and sister of Liaqat Ali also left her house. On the fateful night at about 10-30 p.m., the complainant, his mother Mst. Salma Bibi (deceased), Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Saleem were sitting in the house on cots and were gossiping. The lantern was on in the courtyard. Liaqat Ali armed with .12 bore pistol came there and raised Lalkara to Mst. Salma Bibi that he would teach lesson to her for not sending his wife with him and fired, which hit Mst. Salma Bibi on her left hand, left flank and left chest. She fell down. The complainant party tried to apprehend the accused, who made good his escape. Mst. Salma Bibi succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
4. The motive behind the occurrence as set in the F.I.R. was that three days prior to the instant occurrence Liaqat Ali came to the house of the complainant to take his wife but Mst. Salma Bibi mother of the complainant refused to send her daughter with him and insulted Liaqat Ali. Due to that grudge Liaqat Ali committed the murder of Mst. Salam Bibi.
5. After registration of formal F.I.R., the investigation of the case was taken over by Manzoor-ul-Hassan, S.-I./P.W.9. He proceeded to the place of occurrence, took over the dead body, prepared injury statement Exh.P.B. and inquest report Exh.P.C. He took into possession blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo. Exh.P.H. On 17-9-1999 he arrested Liaqat AB. At that time Liaqat Ali was in possession of pistol P.3 along with two cartridges P.4/1-2. The articles were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. After completion of investigation, the accused was sent up to face trial.
6. At the trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case produced 9 witnesses in all. The prosecution after tendering in evidence the reports of Chemical Examiner Exh. P. L. that of Serologist Exh. P. M. closed its case. The accused in his statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. pleaded his innocence. He did 'not appear as witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. After conclusion of trial Liaqat Ali-appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
7. After having read the entire prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. and other relevant material available on record , the learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal has contended that Shaukat Ali P.W. was related to the deceased, while Muhammad Akbar was friend of Shaukat Ali and had no business to be present at the time of occurrence; that there were contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence; and that in any case it was not case of capital sentence, as the deceased was preventing her daughter to live with the appellant.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State have contended that both the witnesses were natural witnesses; that the matter was reported to the police without any loss of time; and that the prosecution evidence was consistent and was supported by the medical evidence as well as by the evidence of recovery of pistol. They support the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the entire evidence minutely. The ocular version consists of the statements of Shaukat Ali P.W.6 son of the deceased, who was inmate of the house and whose presence could not be doubted, arid Muhammad Akbar P.W.7, who being neighbour had friendly relations with Shaukat Ali. However, he had no previous enmity or ill-will against the appellant, so as to depose against him falsely. The identity of the appellant was also not in doubt as the appellant was married with sister of Shaukat Ali-complainant and was known to Muhammad Akbar as well. At the time of occurrence lantern was on and the inmates of the house were gossiping with one another. The lantern was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer on the very day he visited the spot. Both the witnesses have given consistent, coherent, natural and trustworthy account of the incident. Intrinsic value of their evidence could not be shaken during cross-examination. The complainant had no time to fabricate the story as the matter of the occurrence at the police within two hours of the occurrence at the police station, which was at a distance of 10 Kms. The statements of the eye-witnesses are fully supported by the medical evidence. It is in evidence that the sister of the complainant was married with the appellant while sister of the appellant was married with brother of his wife. The sister of the complainant, wife of the appellant, was issueless while sister of the appellant was mother of a child. Due to some differences wife of the appellant left the house of her husband similarly sister of the appellant also left the house of her husband. It is also in evidence that sister of the complainant had returned to her house 10/15 days prior to the occurrence. Hence there was no other motive except the one mentioned in the F.I.R. that the appellant had gone to the house of the complainant in order to bring back his wife three days prior to the incident but he was insulted by his mother-in-law Mst. Salam Bibi (deceased) and Shaukat Ali-complainant and the appellant returned to his house without his wife. The plea taken by the appellant that Mst. Sarwari daughter-in-law of the deceased was annoyed with the deceased and she got Mst. Salam Bibi murdered through some assailants, is neither borne out from the circumstances of the case nor it is supported by any evidence. No plausible reason is available on the record for substitution of a killer with an innocent person.
10. As far as recovery is concerned, neither the empties nor the recovered pistol were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, so we would not like to consider this evidence against the appellant.
11. After scanning the entire evidence we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant through ocular evidence, which is fully supported by the medical evidence and corroborated by the circumstances of the case like lodging of F.I.R. without delay and motive.
12. Having come to this conclusion we have given our considerate thought as to the quantum of sentence. It has been noticed by us that the appellant came armed from his house and took life of an innocent person. We remained unable to find out any mitigating circumstance in this favour. Thus, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is sustained.
13. Murder Reference is answered in affirmative. Death sentence is confirmed.
H.B. T. /L-26/L Appeal dismissed.