MUHAMMAD IJAZ alias JAJJI and another vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while altering the death sentence of the first petitioner to life imprisonment due to his youthful age of sixteen years and indirect connection to the motive. The core legal question involved the sustainability of the conviction based on ocular testimony, medical evidence, motive, and recovery of a weapon. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact based on reliable ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, motive, and recovery could not be interfered with, especially when the petition was also barred by limitation. The Court laid down that concurrent factual findings supported by consistent evidence will not be reappraised by the apex court, and dismissed the petition on merits as well as limitation.
- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence in a criminal petition against concurrent findings of fact?
- Can youth at the time of the offence and indirect connection to the motive serve as mitigating circumstances for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Whether ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, motive, and recovery is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of to Lahore High Court Lahore dated 21st June, 1988 whereby death sentence awarded to Muhammad Ijaz alias Jajji petitioner was altered to life imprisonment maintaining his conviction whereas appeal of Riaz Ahmad petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that both the petitioners were tried for offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. For the murder of Muhammad Ashfaq at 6-30 p.m. On 3rd May 1982 and the trial Court vide its judgment convicted both the petitioners under section 302/34, P.P.C. Sentencing Muhammad Ijaz alias Jajji petitioner to death plus fine and Riaz Ahmad petitioner to life imprisonment plus fine. On appeal as stated above the High Court reduced the sentence of Muhammad Ijaz alias Jajji petitioner from death to imprisonment for life. There is recovery of human blood-stained dagger from Muhammad Ijaz alias Jajji petitioner which has been believed as a corroborative piece of evidence supporting the ocular testimony of Ghiasuddin father of the deceased and Abdus Sattar an independent eye-witness. The motive in this case has also not been disbelieved. It was to the effect that the deceased was running a library and Riaz Ahmad petitioner had asked him to help him in establishing relations with a girl who used to visit the said library. The deceased declined to do so and this had annoyed Riaz Ahmad petitioner who alongwith his brother Muhammad Ijaz alias Jajji petitioner in, furtherance of their common intention had attacked the dececeased with daggers and murdered him in the presence of the eye-witnesses. The ocular testimony in the instant case was being supported by the medical evidence and the motive version apart from being corroborated by the recovery evidence. The reason why the sentence of Muhammad Ijaz alias Jajji was reduced by the High Court was firstly that at the time of occurrence he was only 16 years of age and secondly that he was not directly connected with the motive as it was Riaz Ahmad petitioner who was so connected.
3. Learned counsel before us attempted to argue that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case, the motive could not be established and the ocular evidence was interested as well as in conflict with the medical evidence. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel. He appears to want us to reappraise the evidence which cannot be done at this stage. The petition is even otherwise barred by 5 days. Be that as it may since there is no substance in this petition on merits, we dismiss it accordingly.