IKRAMUL HAQ 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 the deceased by stabbing him with a knife following a quarrel between the children of the two families. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's guilt based on eye-witness testimony and corroborating circumstances were sustainable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the eye-witnesses, including the brother of the deceased and independent neighbours whose presence was established at the hospital, gave consistent and reliable accounts supported by the circumstances of the crime, and that no mitigating circumstances existed to alter the death sentence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that consistent ocular testimony corroborated by attending circumstances is sufficient to sustain a capital conviction for murder.
- Whether concurrent findings of guilt under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be maintained on the basis of consistent eye-witness testimony?
- Does a sudden quarrel between children resulting in an altercation constitute a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence?
- Whether independent eye-witnesses whose presence is verified at the hospital provide sufficient corroboration in a murder trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner stands convicted under Section 302, P. P. C., and sentenced to death for the murder of Muhammad Yakub, deceased, by stabbing him with knife on the morning of the 19th August 1968, in the city of Lyallpur.
2. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Ishfaq, F W. 7, brother of the deceased and two other neighbours, namely, Ghulam Muhammad, P. W. 8 and Muhammad Ramzan, P. W. 9, The 'deceased was taken to the hospital in injured condition, but lie died before medical aid could be given to him. The motive for the crime was a quarrel', between the children of the two families on the day which led to exchange ofabuses and an altercation- in which- the deceased slapped the petitioner.
3. We have, with the help of learned counsel for the petitioner, examined the record and found that there was no previous back--ground of enmity between the parties. Muhammad Ishfaq, brother of the deceased, had, therefore, no reason to substitute the petitioner for the real culprit. Ghulam Muhammad, P. W. 8 and Muhammad Ramzan, P. W. 9 were wholly independent. One of them accompanied Muhammad Yaqub, deceased, to the hospital and his presence is noted in the medico-legal report. The statement of the other witness was also recorded by the Investigating Officer in the Hospital soon after Muhammad Yakub expired. We have read the statements of the three eye-witnesses and found the account given by them consistent. The circum--stances attending upon the crime also corroborate their version. We accordingly find no reason to call in question the findings arrived at by the Courts below that the petitioner was guilty of the offences under section 302, P. P. C., for the pre-planned murder of Muhammad Yakub, deceased. As no mitigating circumstance appeared the sentence of death was correctly awarded to him. The petition is dismissed.