ASGHAR ALI Alias BHOLA And Another vs The STATE
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for murder and causing injury. The petitioners were convicted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and causing injury to his brother following a dispute over a small service charge. The High Court had previously dismissed their appeals and confirmed the death sentences. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction was sustainable based on the ocular testimony and whether the sentence of death was appropriate given the circumstances of the incident. The Court held that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the guilt of the petitioners, finding no grounds to interfere with the conviction. However, noting that the underlying dispute involved a trivial amount of money and followed an exchange of abuses, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically to consider the appropriateness of the death sentence. The principle established is that while ocular testimony may sufficiently prove guilt, the proportionality of a death sentence may be reviewed when the motive involves a trivial dispute.
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely to consider the appropriateness of a sentence while upholding a conviction?
- Does a trivial motive for a crime provide grounds for reviewing the imposition of a death sentence?
- Is ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.--Both the petitions suffer from delay, for the condonation of which the petitioners have applied. For the reasons given in their applications, the delay is condoned.
2. The to petitioners, namely, Tassaddaq and Asghar Ali, alongwitt their co-accused Manzoor Hussain, had been tried for the murder of Abdul Qayyum deceased and for causing injury to his brother Muhammad Arshad, in the result of which Manzoor Hussain co-accused was acquitted but the petitioners were convicted and sentenced under section 302/34, P.P.C. To death plus a fine of Rs.1,000 and under section 324/34, P.P.C. To R.I. For three months plus a fine of Rs.100. Their appeals in the High _ Court were dismisse1 by the impugned judgment dated 13-3-1983 and their death sentences were confirmed.
3. The deceased ran a service station-cum-auto workshop near the tongs-stand on Satiana Road, Faisalabad. His brother Muhammad Arshad, a student, being on vacation, was assisting him in the business. On 19-8-1978, the petitioners and their co-accused came to the service station and got their rickshaw serviced but refused to pay the service charges which led to an altercation. While leaving, Asghar Ali uttered threat that he would soon return to teach the deceased a lesson. They did return at 8.30 a.m. The same morning, parked their rickshaw near the bridge across the road and in front of the workshop. Asghar Ali called the deceased to come and get the money. When the deceased went there he was caught hold of by the collar by Manzoor Hussain who dragged him to the other side of the road where he was given repeated Chhuri blows by the petitioners.
Muhammad Arshad, brother of the deceased who tried to intervene, was also given a Chhuri blow on the right knee by Asghar Ali. Besides Muhammad Ashraf (P W.11), the occurrence was also seen by Bashir Ahmad (P.W.9) father of the deceased, who lodged the report, Nawab (P.W.10) and one Gulzar who was not produced. The petitioners, who were arrested the next day led to the recovery of a blood-stained Chhuri each but the recovery was not believed by the Courts below. The petitioners denied the allegations and attributed the case to enmity and suspicion. The Courts below, however, relied on the ocular testimony which was supported by the evidence of motive and the medical evidence which showed the presence of 10 injuries on the person of the deceased and one incised wound on Muhammad Arshad P.W.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we are satisfied that the Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence in regard to the guilt of the petitioners and as such we find no scope for interference as regards their conviction. However,- since the evidence shows that the amount of service charges was sma ll, that is, Rs.3 only and there had been exchange of abuses following upon the refusal of the petitioners to pay the same, leave is granted to consider the question of the sentence only.