ABDUL RASHID vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which altered the respondent's conviction from section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to section 304, Part I, and reduced the death sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in re-appraising the evidence, disbelieving the eye-witnesses, and converting the conviction based on a sudden chance encounter and absence of premeditation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's re-appraisal of the evidence, finding discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence, discounting the presence of interested eye-witnesses, and accepting the plea of a sudden quarrel without premeditation was unexceptionable and free from legal infirmity. The key principle laid down is that where the High Court properly evaluates evidence, highlights conflicts with contemporaneous documents, and concludes that an incident occurred on the spur of the moment in a chance encounter, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the reduction of sentence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and substituting it with section 304, Part I?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's re-appraisal of evidence and assessment of eye-witness credibility when no legal defect is pointed out?
- Whether an incident arising from a sudden quarrel without premeditation attracts the application of section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---Muhammad Akhtar alongwith two others, was tried under section 302/34, P.P.C. For the murder of Abdul Sattar alias Kala by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who vide his order dated 5-2-1984 found the petitioner guilty under section 302 PPC and sentenced him to death subject to confirmation by the High Court and also to pay a fine of Rs, 10,000 half of which was to he paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default of payment of the fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The other two co-accused were acquitted giving them the benefit of doubt.
2. ' The convict Muhammad Akhtar filed Criminal Appeal No, 28 of 1984 against his sentence and Reference for confirmation of the sentence of death bore Murder Reference No, 54 of 1984. Both the matters were taken up by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, and found that the incident had taken place suddenly as a result of quarrel and covictappellant had no intention to commit murder. His conviction under section 302, P.P.C. Was set aside and he was found guilty under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. And sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment plus a line of Rs, 3,000, in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.
3. ' The complainant-petitioner, father of the deceased, has applied for leave to appeal against the said judgment of the High Court and for restoration of the order of the learned trial Court.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Courts below erred in law in disbelieving the ocular evidence corroborated by the recovery of the blood-stained knife P 5 on the pointing of the accused-respondent.
5. ' The defence plea was that accused-respondent had acted in self-defence as the deceased had attempted to hit him with a knife and he in order to save himself from the second attempt picked up a knife from a nearby fruit-cart, gave a single blow to the deceased. He also filed a detailed statement Ex. D. 3 and produced three witnesses.
6. ' The learned Division Bench of the High Court has re-appraised the entire evidence on the record.
7. The location of the occurrence deposed to by the eye-witnesses was found to be in conflict with the documentary evidence contemporaneously prepared i,e, the inquest report and by its author.
8. Presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence was not accepted. Interest and past animosity were accepted.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any legal or other defect in the appraisement of the evidence of the prosecution. The finding in juxtaposition with the defence that the incident had taken place suddenly and, in fact, is a chance encounter is unexceptionable. The deceased was a desperado and was involved in criminal cases as admitted by his father, the complainant. Therefore, we find no legal infirmity in the order of the learned Division Bench of the High Court in setting aside the conviction under section 302, P.P.C. And convicting the accused- respondent under section 304, Part 1, P.P.C. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years plus a fine of Rs, 3,000, in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The fine if realized shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased. Since it was not so mentioned, except with this modification, the judgment of the High Court calls for no interference.
10. ' The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.