ALI BAHADUR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a jail petition filed by Ali Bahadur against his conviction and death sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (on three counts) and section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which were upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on the ocular testimony, medical evidence, recovery of the weapon, and abscondence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence was convincing, natural, and corroborated, rendering the defence plea irrelevant and baseless. The Court affirmed the conviction while noting that the death sentence had already been commuted to imprisonment for life pursuant to a general order of the President. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of guilt based on consistent eyewitness accounts supported by medical evidence and corroborative circumstances warrant the maintenance of conviction in capital cases.
- Whether the uncorroborated ocular testimony of an injured witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder and attempt to murder?
- Does the plea of alibi and alternate version presented by the accused without substantiation warrant setting aside concurrent findings of lower courts?
- Whether the recovery of the weapon and abscondence of the accused immediately after the incident serve as corroborative circumstances to support a conviction?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN AL! SHAH, J.--Ali Bahadur son of Hashim Ali, petitioner in this jail petition was tried by the learned trial Judge under section 302, P.P.C. (on three counts) and 307, P.P.C. For the brutal murders of Qalandar Khan, his wife Mst.Zaibo Jan and Mst.Zakaria Jan wife of Zardad and an attempt to murder Mst.Hanifa Jan daughter of Qalandar Khan (deceased) and was found guilty of the offence and awarded death sentence to him on each count under section 302, P.P.C. And 5 years' R.I. Under section 307, P.P.C. The occurrence took place in the house of Qalandar Khan (deceased) on 6-7- 1979 at Degar Nimaz Vela'. The eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution included Nawab Khan complainant, brother of the deceased Qalandar Khan, Mst.Hanifa Jan who received injury at the hands of the accused, Mst.Chanan Jan sister of the complainant, Jehan Dad and Shah Dad both nephews of the complainant. The ocular account of the case is convincing. On appeal to the High Court by the accused against his conviction and sentences, the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court after a thorough scrutiny of the entire evidence on record dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and his death sentence on each count was confirmed vide judgment dated 7-2-1984.
2. 'After perusal of the judgment of the trial Court as well as the High Court, I have no doubt in my mind that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. It is a broad-day occurrence, enacted in the house of all the deceased and the presence of Mst.Hanifa Jan at the time of occurrence is natural and proved by the injury on her person. There is no reason either for false implication or identification of the assailant. The statement of this eye-witness besides the testimony of other witnesses, also finds support from the medical evidence, recovery of shot gun used in the commission of the offence and abscondence of the accused immediately after the incident. However, the plea taken by the accused petitioner was that he was at Karachi and when arrested and came to Abbottabad, he was told by the people that Mst.Hanifa Jan and Mst.Zakaria Jan with some vagabonds were enjoying on his roof on the summer night and when objected by the neighbours, they started pelting stones on them and in return the neighbours started firing from their roofs which has resulted in the murder of the deceased. This plea of the petitioner seems to be irrelevant and does not appeal to reason, therefore, it has rightly been disbelieved by the Courts below.
3. ' In view of the above I am of the opinion that the conviction of the petitioner under section 302/307, P.P.C., recorded by the learned trial Judge and confirmed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court is well-founded and is to be maintained. This jail petition is to be dismissed accordingly. However, in view of the general order of the President, the sentence of the petitioner has already been commuted to imprisonment for life.
4. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--I agree.