ALLAH DITTA vs The STATE
This is a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed from jail by Allah Ditta, who was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the murder of his cousin Walidad, committed due to a motive arising from a matrimonial dispute. The core legal questions involve the proper appraisal of ocular and circumstantial evidence for the safe administration of criminal justice, particularly in light of an antecedent murder charge involving the petitioner arising from the same transaction or background, and whether the death penalty is warranted under such circumstances. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal after condoning an 11-day delay due to the capital nature of the sentence and the petitioner's incarceration, holding that the complex factual background and features of the case require a thorough examination and reappraisal of the evidence.
- Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 satisfy the accepted principles for the safe administration of criminal justice based on the provided evidence?
- Whether the sentence of death is appropriately imposed in a case where the accused has a complex background involving a simultaneous or antecedent murder allegation?
- Whether delay in filing a jail petition for leave to appeal can be condoned when the petitioner is sentenced to death and incarcerated?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Allah Ditta convicted of the offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to death, seeks leave to appeal from jail against his conviction and sentence.
2. The allegation which stands proved against him is that he alongwith his brother committed the murder of Walidad, his own cousin on the night between 5th and 6th of October, 1979 because Walidad had married to Mst. Jannat another cousin of his who was earlier betrothed to him. At the trial, the inmates of the house Talib Hussain and Fazal appeared as eye-witnesses of the occurrence and were believed. Ahmad Bux, the father of Mst. Jannat appeared and deposed about the motive.
3. What has, however, intrigued us is the fact that according to Ahmad Bux (P.W. 9) immediately before the murder of Walidad the petitioner alongwith his three brothers is stated to have committed the murder of Mumtaz a son of- Ahmad Bux for which a First Information Report had been lodged. The police officer who was investigating this case had found the petitioner already arrested in that case and the weapon of offence also recovered in connection with that murder too. The date and further particulars are not provided nor the fact whether he was free after committing that murder to commit this murder. There are certain features in the case which require a proper appraisal of the evidence with a view to ensure that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner proceed on the accepted principles for safe administration of criminal justice.
4. Even otherwise, the question whether in such a background the sentence of death should be imposed or not requires examination. Leave to appeal, therefore, is granted.
5. The petition is shown to be barred by 11 days but as it involves the death sentence and the petitioner is in prison, we would condone the delay. The record be made available at the hearing.