HAQDAD KHAN vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal matter where the petitioner was convicted under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced to death for shooting dead his co-villager in broad daylight. The conviction and death penalty awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge were subsequently confirmed by the High Court on appeal and reference under Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the grounds raised regarding the evaluation of eye-witness testimony and the petitioner's absconding warranted interference with the concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that all grounds raised in support of the petition related purely to the appreciation of evidence. The Court laid down the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent factual findings where the grounds raised pertain merely to the appreciation of evidence. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal where the grounds raised pertain solely to the appreciation of evidence?
- Whether the absconding of an accused after an incident can be relied upon to corroborate eye-witness testimony?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of credible eye-witness testimony notwithstanding the exclusion of a dying declaration?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-It has been found by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, by his order dated the 2nd December 1968, that the petitioner shot dead his co-villager Mohammed Aslam at Jhikki Degarwela (about 6 p. m.) in Wandha Jalanderwala, P. S. Sadder, Mianwali.
2. Conviction was recorded under section 302, P. P. C. And penalty of death awarded to the petitioner which has been on appeal and reference under section 374, Cr. P. C., confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court.
3. F. I. R., was recorded on the basis of the dying declaration made by the deceased in the Civil Hospital at 7-20 p.m. He charged therein the petitioner for effectively hitting him with a rifle shot and his companion for having fired a gun shot which missed him. The occurrence took place in daylight in front of the Baithak of Haqdad Khan, P. W. Uncle of the deceased, and was witnessed by his son Arsla Khan P. W. And Alam Khan P. W. None had a motive of his own to implicate the petitioner nor was any other circumstance elucidated in their cross-examination to doubt their credibility.
4. The High Court did not rely on the dying declaration, but acted on the oral testimony of the eye- witnesses and the abscon--sion of the petitioner. He was an any personnel and had come to the village on leave from 7-8-1968 to 20-8-1968. He, however, did not report on duty on the 21st August 1968, and was declared a deserter.
5. All the grounds raised in support of the petition for leave to appeal go to mere appreciation of evidence which do not warrant interference by this Court.
6. The petition is dismissed.