SHAFI AHMAD vs The STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of death for the murder of his mother, with his jail petition being barred by 252 days. The prosecution case, established through the testimony of the maternal-grandmother and two independent eye-witnesses, was that the petitioner demanded money, and upon refusal, stabbed his mother to death. Both the trial court and the High Court concurrently believed the prosecution witnesses and maintained the conviction and death sentence, finding no mitigating circumstances. In his petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioner admitted to the stabbing for the first time, offering an uncorroborated explanation regarding a family dispute over property and ornaments. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts were fully justified in relying on the eye-witness testimony, that the petitioner's belated explanation found no support from the record, and that no mitigating circumstances existed to warrant interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Whether a belated jail petition for leave to appeal with an unexplained delay can be entertained without sufficient cause?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court regarding a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Whether an uncorroborated explanation raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal can displace consistent ocular testimony believed by the lower courts?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner stands convicted of the offence under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to death for stabbing to death his own mother. His petition from jail is barred by 252 days for which no explanation is forthcoming except that its condonation has been sought.
2. The criminal case against the petitioner was registered on the statement of his own maternal- grandmother Mst. Ashrafa Begum P.W.1. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner was an errant son, had been turned out of the house and asked not to visit it again. He, however, visited the house on 10-10-1976 demanded money from his mother and when he was refused, he- stabbed her on the roof of the house where it was witnessed by Muhammad Iqbal P.W.3, a neighbour and Zahid Ali P.W.2 who was attracted to the scene. The explanation given by the petitioner at the trial for the charge against him which he denied was as follows:- "Since 1970 I was employed with Jang and other period also as a calligrapher. I used to come to Lahore once or twice a year to celebrate religious festivals. I was never turned out of the house by my father. In fact my maternal-grandmother had usurped the ornaments and other valuables of my mother and cash which was mostly earned by me. She handed over the ornaments and the valuables to her brother, Faqir Muhammad, who squandered away the same. On this I and my paternal-grandfather used to demand the ornaments and the valuables back and she refused to oblige us and would lose her temper. Often she would fall out with my paternal-grandfather on this score. My father is "Ghar Damad" and in execution of his design to grab the house from my maternal-grandmother, would observe silence on the matter. Moreover I would take exception to the conduct of Mst. Ashrafa Begum because she used to go to Karachi and would put up in the house of Jam Ghulam Qadir. My paternal-grandfather and myself used to object to this act of her.
3. She was, therefore, displeased with me and she has implicated me in a false case to get rid of me".
4. The trial Court believed the grandmother the two independent eye-witnesses who had plausibly explained their presence and had witnessed the occurrence, found no mitigating circumstance convicted and sentenced him to death subject to confirmation of the sentence by the High Court.
5. The High Court too found no mitigating circumstance and maintained the conviction and sentence.
6. In his petition for leave to appeal for the first time he has owned having stabbed his mother to death but has given a long explanation for it which is expressed to be not full and complete, With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we, have gone through the record and find that the Courts have justifiably believed the statement of Mst. Ashrafa P.W. And the two witnesses and held the petitioner guilty of the offence under section 302, P.P.C. The circumstances disclosed by the petitioner for the first time in his petition from jail do not find any support whatsoever from the record. Actually, the facts made the ground are rebutted by the evidence which has come on the record. There is even otherwise no mitigating circumstance appearing on the record and the case requires no further examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.