MUHAMMAD ASIF vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from the High Court's refusal to interfere with the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence, specifically regarding the reliance on eye-witness testimony from the deceased's family members and the recovery of incriminating items. The appellant contended that the weak motive evidence and the nature of the injuries suggested provocation, warranting a reduction of the conviction to a lesser offence. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to provide any explanation for the murder of his wife, who died under the same roof, and that the concept of 'last seen' evidence was applicable. Furthermore, the Court ruled that in the absence of evidence proving sudden and grave provocation, the conviction could not be altered. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction, while granting the appellant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding sentence calculation.
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 304 Part I without evidence of sudden and grave provocation?
- Does the concept of 'last seen' evidence apply to an inmate of a house where the deceased was killed?
- Is the failure of an accused to explain the death of a spouse under the same roof a relevant factor in criminal appreciation of evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304 Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.--This appeal through leave of the Court is directed; against refusal by the High Court to interfere with the conviction of the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. And sentence of life imprisonment. His appeal in this behalf was dismissed.
2. ' While granting leave to appeal it was noted that the conviction is based on: the eye-witness account furnished by the brother and mother of the deceased who is Mst. Amiran wife of the appellant; the recovery of blood-stained hatchet at his instance and the recovery of the blood- stained Chaddar and shirt from his person. The occurrence is of night - between 11th/12th of January, 1978. When arrested after about a month he was found wearing such clothes which had some blood stains on them. Leave to appeal was granted to re-examine the evidence in order to see; whether, normal principles of appreciation of evidence in a criminal case were followed or not.
3. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel that the motive evidence is weak and not much convincing. On the other hand relying on the B number and nature of injuries which are large in number and many of them are serious he contended that something extraordinary must have happened before the appellant inflicted these injuries. Accordingly, as argued by him, the appellant should have been allowed due benefit in this behalf. When questioned as to what is the legal plea on account of which such circumstance by itself would be enough either to acquit the appellant or to alter his conviction to a lesser offence; learned counsel stated that it can be assumed that he must have been provoked to do such act of cruelty otherwise there is nothing on record to explain his conduct.
4. ' The appellant was at liberty to state the reasons which led him to commit such a cruel murder. If it was on account of some grave provocation the same was not sudden. His conviction would not be altered from sections 302 to 304 Part I, P.P.C. He not having taken the Court into confidence, it is not possible t conjecture that if at all he was provoked it must have been a sudden affair. Possibility cannot be excluded that even if he had some lurking provocation which might also be grave, he might have planned the murder. With regard to the evidence suffice it to observe that it was for the appellant an inmate of house and it was for him to explain how his wife met her death under the same roof. Otherwise too the rationale underlying the concept of last seen should also be applicable. Accordingly, no justification has been made out for interference with the conviction under section 302, P.P.C. He has already been awarded lesser sentence on account of similar considerations as pointed out by the learned counsel. No further benefit can be given to him except that if he has not been allowed the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. He shall be allowed the same.