MATI UR REHMAN And Another vs THE STATE And Other
This matter arises from criminal petitions filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, while reducing the sentence of death to life imprisonment due to an unestablished motive. The core legal question involved the re-appreciation of ocular testimony, identification of the accused, and the propriety of the lesser sentence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the eyewitness testimony was reliable, the identity of the accused was established beyond doubt, and the High Court rightly reduced the sentence to life imprisonment given the shrouded motive. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact based on satisfactory appreciation of broad-daylight ocular evidence will not be interfered with, and that an unestablished motive constitutes a mitigating circumstance justifying the substitution of the death penalty with life imprisonment.
- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence already satisfactorily evaluated by the courts below?
- Is an unestablished motive a valid mitigating circumstance for reducing a sentence of death to life imprisonment?
- Whether concurrent findings regarding the identity of the culprit in a broad-daylight occurrence are open to interference?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- This order will dispose of Criminal Petition No.6-R of 1984 and Criminal Petition No.48 of 1984, as both are directed against one and the same judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Appeal No.754 of 1980 and Murder Reference No.172 of 1980.
2. On 29-12-1978, at about 11.30 a..m., Hamidullah Khan alongwith Khan Bahadur, Amir Umar Khan and Mumtaz Khan were passing through the Bazar and when they reached near Sarai Atta Muhammad Battian ir. Mianwali City, the petitioner herein. Suddenly came in front and raised a Lalkara.
3. Simultaneously he also fired a shot from his revolver at Hamidullah. The shot hit him _on the left side of his belly but he started running. A second shot was then fired at him by Mati-ur-Rehman.
4. This shot hit him on the back side of the left thigh and went through and through. After receiving this shot Hamidullah fell down on the ground. His companions put him in a taxi and brought him to the Civil. Hospital, Mianwali, in an injured condition. He was medically examined. In the meanwhile, the police also arrived at the Hospital.
5. An A.S.I. Atta Muhammad (P.W.14) recorded the statement of Khan Bahadur (P.W.12) at 1.20 p.m. And on the basis of this statement a case under section 307, P.P.C. Was registered against Mati-ur- Rehman, petitioner herein. Since, however, Hamidullah Khan succumbed to his injuries after about a week in the hospital and expired on 6-1-1979, the offence was converted into one under section 302, P.P.C. Mati-ur--Rehman was arrested on 31-12-1978 and later on tried on the charge of murder of Hamidullah Khan.
6. The learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali, vide his judgment dated 3-6-1980, found Mati-ur-Rehman guilty of the charge of murder and convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death. He also imposed a fine of Rs.5, 000 with the direction that if the fine was realised from him, it should be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
7. The convict filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court (Cr.A.No.754/80) challenging his conviction and sentence. The matter was also referred to the said High Court for confirmation of the sentence of death (Murder Reference No.172 of 1980).
8. Both these matters were heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and were disposed of vide its judgment dated 15-1-1984. The learned Judges in the High Court upheld the conviction of petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. But reduced the sentence of death to life imprisonment on the ground that the motive for the offence was not satisfactorily established and, in fact, it was "shrouded in mystery."
9. The petitioner has now filed a petition in this Court (Cr.P.No.6-R/84) to question his conviction and sentence, while Khan Bahadur complainant has also moved this Court for enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to death (Cr.P.No.48/84).
10. We have heard Mr. Fazal Ellahi Siddiqi, Advocate, in support of the petition (Cr.P.6-R/84) filed by Mati-ur-Rehman as well as Mr. Rab Nawaz Niazi, learned counsel for Khan Bahadur, complainant, in support of his petition (Cr.P.48/84) and perused the record. Both of them have merely asked us to re-appraise the evidence, which has already been done quite satisfactorily by the Courts below.
11. The occurrence took place in a broad-daylight (at 11.30 a.m.). It was witnessed by Khan Bahadur P.W.12 and to others, one of whom, namely, Mumtaz Khan P.W.13, also appeared in Court, apart from Khan Bahadur P.W.12 and both of them stated quite categorically that it was Mati-ur-Rehman who fired the to shots at the deceased.We are also satisfied that there is absolutely no doubt about the identity of the culprit who was, indeed, Mati-ur-Rehman and the real culprit' has not been substituted. The conviction of the petitioner was. Therefore, fully justified.
12. We are also satisfied that the imposition of the lesser sentence was proper in the circumstances of this case and the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of death imposed on Mati-ur- Rehman to that of life imprisonment.
13. The result is that both these petitions must fail and are, accordingly, dismissed hereby.
Cited by 2 cases
- ABDUL WAHAB Versus STATE 1999 SCMR 1668
- MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs The STATE 1987 SCMR 790