TASADUQ HUSSAIN vs THE ST A TE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, carrying a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution's case rested on the petitioner allegedly killing the deceased in a servant quarter, motivated by resentment over the deceased divorcing the petitioner's sister. The conviction was based on the ocular testimony of the deceased's brother and circumstantial evidence, including the petitioner's arrest near the crime scene with the weapon. The petitioner challenged the reliability of the eyewitness and alleged discrepancies in the arrest circumstances. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, after reviewing the record, held that both the trial court and the High Court had appreciated the evidence in full accord with well-settled legal principles. Finding no justification for interference, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
- Whether minor discrepancies in the manner of an accused's arrest soon after a crime are sufficient to discard reliable ocular and circumstantial evidence?
- Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained primarily on the ocular testimony of a single close relative of the deceased supported by circumstantial evidence?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the High Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-- This is a petition for leave to appeal from the Judgment of Sind High Court dated 1-9-1983 whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed and his conviction under section 302, P.P.C, and sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs,5,000 imposed on him were upheld.
2. ' According to prosecution, petitioner caused the death of Pervaiz Akhtar on 12-7-1976 at 3.15 p.m. In the servant quarter of Gymkhana Club, Karachi where deceased's brother Khidmat Hussain was residing. Motive for the crime is said to be annoyance harboured by petitioner over divorce of his sister Mst. Mahfooz Akhtar by her husband Pervaiz Akhtar deceased. The crime was witnessed by Khidmat Hussain and petitioner was arrested while he was running away from the scene of the crime with the weapon of crime.
3. ' The Additional Sessions Judge who tried the case believed the ocular testimony of P.W. Khidmat Hussain and the circumstantial evidence and held the petitioner guilty. A learned Single Judge of the High Court on appeal at petitioner's instance after reviewing the entire evidence recorded in the case upheld the guilt of the accused and dismissed his appeal.
4. ' In support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Mr. Maroof Ali Khan learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence as to the manner in which petitioner was allegedly arrested soon after the crime is discrepant, and P.W. Khidmat Hussain is unworthy of reliance as a witness.
5. We have gone through the record of the case in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel. We find that by basing petitioner's guilt on the charge levelled against him the trial Court and the High Court have acted in full accord with the well-settled principles regarging appreciation of evidence and there is no justification whatsoever for interference by this Court.
6. ' The petition is accordingly dismissed.