MUHAMMAD YAQUB Alias PANJU vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Yaqub, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Muhammad Shakeel under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution's case rested on three eyewitnesses, the recovery of a weapon (Chhuri), medical evidence, and a motive. The petitioner admitted to the killing but provided a contrary version of events, which the trial court rejected in favor of the prosecution's evidence. The High Court subsequently upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive and that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to exclude the defense's version. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the impugned judgment and the relevant evidence, found no merit in these contentions. Consequently, the Court held that the case did not warrant the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the lower courts' findings regarding the petitioner's guilt and the reliability of the prosecution's case.
- Does the failure to prove an alleged motive automatically invalidate a conviction for murder?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to grant leave to appeal when the lower courts have concurrently relied on eyewitness testimony and physical evidence to reject a defense version of events?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Muhammad Yaqub petitioner was tried for the murder of Muhammad Shakeel and he was sentenced to death under section 302, P.P.C.
2. Prosecution produced 3 eye-witnesses in support of its case and also relied on the recovery of Chhuri (P.5) from the petitioner, motive and the medical evidence.
3. The accused-petitioner admitted having killed Muhammad Shakeel but gave a contrary version.
4. Learned trial Court after considering both the versions rejected the defence version and relying on the prosecution evidence, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to death under Section 302, P.P.C. The High Court rejected his appeal and confirmed the sentence of death. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length. He strenuously argued that the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive alleged by it and that the version put forward by the prosecution was not sufficient to rule out the defence version.
6. Having gone through the impugned judgment and .The relevant portion of the evidence we are not inclined to agree with the submission. We do not, therefore, consider this to be a fit case for grant of leave.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.