ABDUL SHAKOOR vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Shakoor against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his appeal and confirmed his conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of an 8-year-old child. The prosecution alleged that following altercations over trivial matters involving cattle trespassing and a disputed right of way, the petitioner attacked and killed the child with a hatchet. The petitioner pleaded grave and sudden provocation, claiming the child's father had outraged his sister's modesty and the child had used filthy language. The Supreme Court noted that the death sentence already stood converted to life imprisonment due to a general amnesty. The Court held that the trivial nature of the prior altercations and the exchange of abuses did not bring the brutal killing of a child within the purview of the sought exceptions for grave and sudden provocation. Finding no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and upheld the conviction.
- Does an exchange of abuses over trivial matters constitute grave and sudden provocation to reduce murder to a lesser offense?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and High Court regarding guilt warrant interference by the Supreme Court when supported by medical and ocular evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: --Abdul Shakoor a convict under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to death, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 26th of January, 1988 whereby his appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed and the sentence of death was confirmed.
2. The petitioner alongwith his brother Noor and father Abdul Ghani was sent up for trial for causing the death of Naveed Mujtaba (aged 8 years) son of Zahoor Ahmad (P.W-6) on 14th of August, 1983, at 8.30 a.m. The prosecution case set out at the trial was that an altercation had taken place at 6.00 a.m. Between Abdul Ghani and Zahoor Ahmad over the cattle trespassing into the field of Abdul Ghani followed by another altercation when Mst. Rashida, daughter of Abdul Ghani wanted to pass through the land of Zahoor and she was denied passage from there. Soon thereafter when Zahoor was on his way to mosque with his son Naveed Mujtaba to have a bath there, the petitioner alongwith his brother Noor, at the instigation of their father Abdul Ghani, came there and started abusing him. Zahoor made good his escape. Noor caught hold of Naveed Mujtaba and asked the petitioner to kill him. The petitioner gave four hatchet blows to him causing his death.
3. The petitioner made the following statement to explain the case against him:-- "I am innocent. On the date of occurrence, Zahoor P.W. Outraged the modesty of my sister when she was passing through fare while going with my meal to our fields. Said Zahoor assaulted her and outraged her modesty. Her clothes were torn and she was rescued by neighbouring farmers.
When she reached me, she was weeping and her condition was miserable. On my query, she said "she cannot tell me in words, what Zahoor had done with her." The situation provoked me and I ran towards the site where she was outraged but Zahoor was not present there. I went to the village and knocked the door of Zahoor P.W. But he was not available. His son came out and asked me what was the matter. I told that his father had outraged the modesty of my sister. His son Naveed Mujtaba deceased used filthy language and said that he was to do first what his father had done. I do not know what happened afterwards."
4. The trial Court by its judgment dated 3rd April, 1985 acquitted the two co-accused but convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to death. The High Court by its judlinent dated 26-1-1988 rejected the appeal and confirmed the death sentence awarded to the petitioner.
5. We find that on account of general amnesty granted, the petitioner's death sentence already stands converted into life imprisonment and we proceed to deal with the petition on that assumption.
6. The prosecution case establishes that the altercations which had taken place in quick sequence were over trivial matters. Only exchange of abuses had taken place. In this background, the killing of a child aged 8 years, even if he had used abusive language, would not bring the act of the petitioner within one of the Exceptions sought to be invoked by him. The injuries found on his person bear out the prosecution case as also the location where they were caused. The Courts below have justifiably found the case of the prosecution fully made out calling for no interference. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.