MAQBOOL AHMAD vs AMIRUDDIN And Another
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a High Court judgment that maintained the conviction of the accused, Amiruddin, for the murder of Muhammad Akram under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing his sentence from death to imprisonment for life and enhancing the fine. The accused sought leave to challenge his conviction, while a relative of the deceased sought the restoration of the death sentence. The core legal questions were whether the delay in filing the petitions should be condoned and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the ocular testimony were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that both petitions were barred by time, and the explanations provided for the delay were unsatisfactory. Furthermore, on the merits, the Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent assessment of the eye-witnesses who observed the accused stabbing the deceased. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions, affirming the principles regarding the limitation period for appeals and the weight accorded to concurrent findings of fact based on credible ocular testimony.
- Are petitions for leave to appeal maintainable when they are barred by time and the explanations for delay are unsatisfactory?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses?
- Is a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when based on the testimony of two eye-witnesses who observed the stabbing?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- Amiruddin alongwith Muhammad Arshad Muhammad Aslam, Maqbool Ahmad and Muhammad Sharif, was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on a charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of Muhammad Akram deceased. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the co-accused by giving them the benefit of doubt but convicted Amiruddin of the offence under section 302 and sentenced him to death and to pay fine. On appeal and reference, the High Court maintained his conviction but reduced his sentence to imprisonment for life. It also enhanced the amount of fine to Rs.20,000.
Amiruddin has asked for leave to appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence. A brother of Muhammad Akram deceased also seeks leave to appeal for restoration of the sentence of death.
2. Both the petitions are barred by time. The explanations offered for the condonation of delay are not satisfactory. On merits too the petition preferred by Amiruddin has no substance. There were two eye-witnesses of the occurrence who saw him stabbing the deceased in the chest. The learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court have believed their testimony and we see no reason to disagree with their assessment of the ocular testimony. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- KHALIDA REHMAN Versus MUHAMMAD QAIL 1988 PLD 85