MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs The STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, which had resulted in a sentence of imprisonment for life and fine, subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent findings of guilt by the courts below based on ocular testimony warranted interference and whether the defence plea of grave and sudden provocation or accidental fire during a scuffle was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact based on natural eye-witness accounts were unexceptionable and did not warrant reappraisal of evidence, thereby dismissing the petition for acquittal. However, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts based on reliable eyewitness testimony will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court absent a miscarriage of justice.
- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence after concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the High Court?
- Is a convict entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the period spent in custody during trial?
- Whether the defence plea of accidental fire during a scuffle can override consistent eye-witness testimony?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
OPINION OF FIRST JUDGE SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner stands convicted under section 302 P.P.C. For the murder of Zulfiqar Ahmad and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 in default to undergo one year's R.I. The fine, if recovered, was ordered to be distributed amongst the heirs of the deceased, as compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case were that the petitioner's brother Muhammad Ashraf had gone to Karachi to earn his livelihood as a labourer leaving behind his daughter Mst. Sahiban and two deaf and dumb sons in the village Paur Miana. There was a rumour in the village that the deceased was carrying on with Mst. Sahiban. On 29-4-1981, when the deceased was sitting along with his brother Iftikhar Ahmad P.W. And Irshad Ahmad P.W. In a room in a small hotel run by Sadaqat Ali P.W, the petitioner accompanied by another suddenly appeared and fired at the deceased resulting in the latter's death. The plea in defence was that a day earlier when the petitioner had come back after working in the field his niece Mst. Sahiban had told him that the deceased had come to her house and raped her. He kept quiet. On the following day he went to the hotel of Sadaqat Ali P.W. To take tea. There he saw the deceased and requested him not to tease them as they were poor people but the deceased said that either the hand of the girl should be given willingly or she would be taken away forcibly. The deceased then suddenly got up and took out a pistol. According to the petitioner he grappled with the deceased and in that process he snatched the pistol. He was receding a few paces back when the pistol went off hitting the deceased in the chest. The learned trial Court relied on the prosecution story disbelieving the defence, convicted the petitioner and acquitted his co-accused. The matter was examined on the appeal of the petitioner by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court who examined the prosecution evidence in juxta-position with the defence plea. The discrepancies pointed out were found to be not material and the conviction and sentence were upheld. As regards the plea for grant of benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. It was observed that the petitioner, if so legally advised, may move the Supreme Court. This is vide judgment dated 17-6-1986. The petitioner has now filed a petition from jail for acceptance of his plea of defence and acquittal.
3. The two Courts below relying on the natural and eye-witness account found the petitioner guilty.
No case for further reappraisal of evidence is called for. The entire evidence as well as the plea of the petitioner have been taken into account while upholding the conviction and sentence. No interference is justifiable. However, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. For taking into account the period during which he remained in custody in commutation of his sentence. Subject to this, the petition is dismissed.
OPINION OF SECOND JUDGE.--I agree.
ORDER OF THE BENCH The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C., for taking into account the period during which he remained in custody in commutation of his sentence. Subject to this, the petition is dismissed.