MAJHI vs The STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed against the concurrent conviction of the petitioner for the murder of a woman, Mst. Budhai, who was strangulated to death after she discarded the petitioner's illicit intimacy in favour of a new paramour. The core legal question concerns whether the appreciation of evidence by the courts below warrants interference by the Supreme Court on a capital charge. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's apprehension at the spot by disinterested eye-witnesses with no motive for false implication are unexceptionable and do not justify leave to appeal. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the death sentence and conviction.
- Does the appreciation of evidence by the courts below warrant interference by the Supreme Court in a capital case where eye-witnesses apprehended the accused at the spot?
- Whether absence of enmity between eye-witnesses and the accused rules out false implication in a murder charge?
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact based on direct eyewitness testimony and prompt lodging of the FIR?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner has been sentenced to death for the murder of Mst.
2. Budhai on 4-6-1968 in village Sangra, district Jhang.
3. The deceased was a woman of loose character. She at first formed illicit intimacy with the petitioner, but she soon discarded him and made a liaison with Rehman's, the village barber.
4. Attempts made by the petitioner to dissuade the deceased from carrying on with her new paramour having failed to invoke any response, he felt provoked and finding the deceased alone in her house at pesh1wela strangulated her to death. The alarm raised by the deceased attracted her uncle Sultan, P. W. 7,Mazhar Hussain, P. W. 8, and Muhammad Hussain, P.W.
9. They actually succeeded in apprehending him and latter on made him over to the police officer who visited the spot after recording the F. I. R., lodged by P. W. 7 at 4 p.m.
5. Courts below have found no enmity between the three eye--witnesses and the petitioner. None had, therefore, any motive to falsely implicate the petitioner on a capital charge. The grounds raised in the petition for leave to appeal go to mere appreciation of evidence which do not warrant interference with the conviction of the petitioner by this Court.
6. The petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 10 cases
- Kosar alias Munna vs The State 2024 MLD 872
- Kifayatullah son of Khawaja Muhammad vs The State 2022 SHC 406, 2024 PCRLJ 605
- Muhammad Nawaz vs The State and another 2024 YLR 670
- Summair vs The State and another 2024 PCRLJ 1349
- Muhammad Jamil Ahmed and another vs The State 2024 PCRLJ 1271
- Muhammad Raheel vs The State 2023 PCRLJ 1752
- Muhammad Sabir and another vs The State 2022 P Cr. L J 606
- ADNAN HUSSAIN Versus State 2020 YLRN 148
- THE STATE vs INAMUR REHMAN ALVI K.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 573
- Veero vs The State 2023 SHC 852