MITHAL vs THE STATE
This is a jail petition filed against the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the High Court, upholding his conviction under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code for committing two murders and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the conviction based on eyewitness testimony from related witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and recovery, in the absence of sudden provocation or enmity. The Supreme Court held that the conviction and sentence were proper and warranted no interference, noting that eyewitnesses were consistent and reliable despite being relatives. The key principle laid down is that related eyewitness testimony, when consistent and corroborated by medical and recovery evidence, is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction where no prior enmity or sudden provocation is established.
- Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder without independent corroboration?
- Does suspicion of Siahkari amount to sudden provocation sufficient to mitigate murder?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding a criminal conviction?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a jail petition filed by the petitioner against his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. For which he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,4,000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Usta Muhammad, vide his order dated 29-2-1988. His appeal' before the High Court was dismissed through the impugned order. This being a jail petition, the delay is condoned.
2. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and the record of the evidence. It is a daylight occurrence and the two murders were committed by the petitioner in his house which had been witnessed by the inmates of the house. Though the witnesses are the relations of the deceased but there is no evidence that there existed any enmity between the parties to falsely implicate the petitioner. The statements of the witnesses are consistent and their version of the incident has been corroborated by the medical evidence and by the recovery of the weapon of offence. The petitioner was arrested the same day. Though there is evidence that the offence was committed because of the suspicion of Siahkari between the deceased but there is no evidence that the offence was committed by the petitioner as a result of sudden provocation. In this view of the matter, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is proper and needs no interference.
3. In this case two murders had been committed in the same transaction. While holding the petitioner guilty of two murders, the learned Sessions Judge, under the law, should have convicted the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. On two counts and should have sentenced him on two counts which he has failed to do. This defect has not been adverted to by the learned Judges of the High Court. On this question, at this stage, I would desist to dilate upon any further because no objection had been raised by the State either before the learned Sessions Judge or the High Court.
The petition is liable to be dismissed.
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--I agree.
' ORDER OF THE BENCH ' Leave to appeal is refused.
Leave to .