Haji Hafiz RASHID AHMAD vs The STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 23-11-1986, whereby his conviction for the murder of his wife and the sentence of death passed by the trial court were upheld and confirmed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner's defence version, when placed alongside the prosecution case, created a reasonable possibility of being true, thereby entitling him to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the evidence on record did not warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, finding no merit in the contention that the defence version was ignored or misconstrued. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of guilt based on proper appreciation of evidence will not be disturbed by the apex court where the defence plea fails to create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of guilt in a murder trial?
- Does a defence version presented by an accused automatically entitle him to the benefit of the doubt?
- When will leave to appeal against a death sentence confirmed by the High Court be refused?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Hafiz Rashid Ahmad petitioner was tried for the murder of his wife for which he was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial Court. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 23-11-1986 and sentence of death was confirmed.
He now seeks leave to appeal against the aforementioned judgment of the High Court.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length.
He sought to argue that although the petitioner admitted having killed his wife but has given a counter-version which constitutes the plea of defence. He submitted further that the defence version put forward by the petitioner had not been given due weight. He urged that petitioner's defence version if placed in juxtaposition with the prosecution version, it would appear that there is a reasonable possibility of the defence version being the correct one. As such he should have been given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
4. Having considered the evidence on the record in the light of the aforementioned contentions we are not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel and find ourselves in respectful agreement with the finding of the High Court on the aforementioned question. Leave is consequently refused.