ABAD ALI vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the petitioner was sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, for the murder of Muhammad Aslam. The conviction and sentence were subsequently confirmed by the High Court. The occurrence involved the petitioner attacking the deceased with a knife at a bus stop, motivated by strained relations stemming from a water theft dispute and the deceased's role as a prosecution witness in a pending criminal case. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner did not challenge the conviction itself but sought a reduction of the death sentence. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the petitioner initiated the attack and was the sole individual with a clear motive. Finding that the courts below correctly appreciated the evidence and that the capital punishment was appropriate given the circumstances, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the death sentence.
- Is the death sentence appropriate where the accused initiated the attack and possessed the sole motive for the murder?
- Does the presence of a single fatal wound among multiple incised wounds preclude the imposition of the death penalty?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be upheld based on ocular testimony alone?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner alongwith one other was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge at Faisalabad of an offence under section 302 read with section 34, Paldstan Penal Code, and was sentenced to death. On appeal and reference the High Court confirmed the sentence of death. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. ' The occurrence allegedly took place on 2-11-1987 at 8-30 a.m. At the bus-stop in Thikriwala.
3. Muhammad Aslam, deceased had come there on a bus. As he was alighting from the bus the petitioner together with the co-accused attacked him with Chhuris. The deceased died at the spot.
4. The occurrence was witnessed by his brother Muhammad Akram and some others. Muhammad Akram went to Police Station Thikriwala, which was one square away and lodged the F.I.R. At 8-45 a.m.
5. According to the prosecution the relations between the deceased and the petitioner were extremely strained on account of theft of water by the petitioner and due to the pendency of another case against the petitioner in a Criminal Court in which the deceased was a witness for the prosecution, These strained relations were stated to be the motive for the occurrence.
6. ' The case of the prosecution against the petitioner rested mainly on the ocular account provided by Muhammad Akram (P.W.9) and Bashir Ahmad (P.W.10). The trial Court as well as the High Court found their testimony to substantially true and accordingly convicted the petitioner of an offence under section 302 read with section 34 for causing the death of the deceased.
7. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 302. He has, however, contended that this was not a fit case where the sentence of death should have bee imposed upon the petitioner.
8. ' After going through the record we are unable to find any merit in t contention. According to the post-mortem report the deceased had received incised wounds on his body only one of these was fatal. It was attributed to petitioner. Apart from that, it was the petitioner who first attacked the deceased. Further, out of the two convicts he alone had the motive to kill deceased. In the circumstances, we do not think that the Courts below erred awarding him the capital punishment.
9. Leave is refused.