IBRAR HUSSAIN and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the convictions of Ibrar Hussain and Muhammad Ayub for murder and attempted murder, while commuting the death sentence of Ibrar Hussain to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence by the High Court, specifically regarding the reliability of interested eye-witnesses and the validity of weapon recovery, as well as the complainant's challenge to the acquittal of a co-accused and the quantum of sentence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly appreciated the evidence, duly considering the possibility of false implication and the relationship of the witnesses to the complainant. Finding no error of law or fact in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions for leave to appeal, affirming that the sentence awarded was legal and proper. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the High Court's factual appreciation of evidence where no legal error is demonstrated.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's appreciation of evidence where no legal error is demonstrated?
- Can the testimony of interested witnesses be accepted if the High Court has properly scrutinized it for false implication?
- Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal when the sentence awarded by the High Court is found to be legal and proper?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 4-7-1987 has been assailed by means of two separate petitions for leave to appeal. Criminal petition 95-R of 1987 has been filed by Ibrar Hussain.
2. ' Ibrar Hussain along with Munir Hussain and Muhammad Ayub were tried for the murder of Mst.Fehmida Begum and for attempt to murder Mazhar Husain, Muhammad Afzal, Misri Khan and Sajjad Hussain. The occurrence took place on 13-7-1983 at 6 p.m. Within the area of village Gurrah Distt. Jhelum.
3. ' The trial Court by judgment dated 8-1-1985, found Ibrar Hussain and Muhammad Ayub guilty under section 302/34, P.P.C. The former was sentenced to death and the latter to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default one year R.I.
4. ' They were also convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to three years' R.I. Each.
5. ' Co-accused Munir Husssa in was acquitted.
6. ' Convicts appealed to the Lahore High Court. Reference for confirmation of Ibrar Hussain's death sentence was also made. The complainant filed two revisions -- one against the acquittal of Munir Hussain and the other for enhancement of sentence of Muhammad Ayub. All these matters were decided by means of the impugned judgment whereby Ibrar Hussain's death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life and his appeal was dismissed with this modification. Co- accused's appeal was also dismissed. The revisions filed by the complainant met the same fate.
7. ' Criminal Petition No,100/87 is by Mazhar Hussain complainant. He also seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the Lahore High Court. Motive for the murder was that on the day of occurrence in the morning the parties fought regarding lane passing in front of the house of the complainant party with regard to which civil litigation was going on. The situation was saved by the intervention of Zariat Hussain. Nevertheless the accused party nursed grudge and that was the reason that in the later part of the day firing took place.
8. Learned counsel appearing for Ibrar Hussain contended that admittedly all the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were closely related to the complainant side. They were thus interested and were out to implicate the petitioner at all costs. Their evidence was even not worth looking at what to say of accepting it.
9. ' Learned counsel also doubted the recovery of rifle from Ibrar Hussain.
10. These contentions deal with the appreciation of evidence which has been done properly by the High Court. All possibilities were duly considered; even that of substituiion. The High Court made sure that the eye-witnesses though related were not falsely deposing.
11. ' The High Court noticed that there was a mitigating circumstance, hence concession was given to the petitioner in the quantum of sentence.
12. We don't think there is any legal proposition to examine any error of law or of fact to be rectified. No case for leave is made out. This petition is dismissed.
13. ' Mazhar Hussain petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court. The sentence awarded was legal and proper. Not a fit case for leave. This petition is also dismissed.