KHALIL AHMAD vs THE STATE
This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and maintained his conviction and sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved the evaluation of concurrent findings of fact relating to a murder charge, including eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, dying declarations, and weapon recoveries. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court rightly maintained the conviction based on the available evidence, reiterating that the Supreme Court does not function as a court of criminal appeal for the mere re-appraisal of evidence where no substantial question of law is involved. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence in a criminal petition when concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the courts below?
- Does a petition for special leave to appeal lie against the dismissal of a criminal appeal where no question of law is involved?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 288, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition for special leave is from the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan dismissing the petitioner's appeal from his conviction and sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. ' The murder of Asghar Ali for which the petitioner has been convicted took place in the house of the deceased on the 5th of September, 1970, at 9 p.m. A first information report was promptly lodged by P. W. Abdul Latif. The petitioner was arrested on the same night and he led to the recovery of a blood-stained knife with which, according to the prosecution, the murder was committed. He also led to the recovery of his blood-stained clothes from his house. The medical evidence disclosed three incised wounds on the body of the deceased, tamely, one on the left side chest measuring 14" x x cavity deep ; another on the left shoulder 3/4' x x 1" deep and the third one on the left side neck 3' below ear lobe 1' x x muscle deep. Three witnesses, all of whom are disinterested, supported the prosecution case. The motive for the offence was that there was enmity between the deceased and the petitioner.
3. ' P. W. 9 Abdul Latif, informant, stated that on inquiry the deceased said that he had been injured by Khalil (the petitioner). The witness stated that Khalil was standing outside the house of Asghar deceased. The witness, however, admitted that it was correctly written in the F. I. R. (Exh. 22) that the accused was standing with a knife in his hand. He denied having had any enmity with the petitioner.
4. ' P. W. 5 Ibne Ali admitted having said before the Committing Court that he saw Khalil stabbing Asghar deceased and that the deceased had told P. W. Latif that the former (the deceased) had been injured by Khalil. The witness, however, stated that the statement given by him before the lower Court was made at the instance of the police and was not correct. His evidence before the Committing Court was put in under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. ' P. W. 4 Hamid Khan said that when he went to the house of the decease he found Khalil Ahmad standing near the deceased.
6. ' As regards the recoveries, a blood-stained pajama and a blood-stained shirt were recovered at the instance of the accused from his room. According to the Investigating Officer P. W. Afzal Ahmad Qureshi a blood-stained chhuri was also recovered at the instance of the accused from under the cot lying in the courtyard of the house of the accused, and a mashirnama Exh. 10 was prepared in respect of this seizure. The mashirnama states that the petitioner led and pointed out house No, 147/8 Area 5/A belonging to Asaf Ali and stated that he had thrown the churn', the weapon of injury, in the aforesaid quarter. The accused led and himself produced bloodstained churri. There are two witnesses, namely, P. W. Aslam Parvez and Sy ed Asaf Ali to this seizure. P. W. Aslam Parvez supported the Investigating Officer and said that the accused produced the chhuri and clothes which were hidden under some hedges in the courtyard of the quarter. The witness further said that the chhuri was at some distance from the clothes.
7. It is, thus, clear that the High Court has rightly maintained the conviction of the petitioner upon the evidence in the case. The learned count sel appearing on behalf of the petitioner merely sought to induce us to make a re-appraisal of the evidence. This, however, was not the function of this Court and we accordingly refused to do so.
8. ' There is no question of law involved in the case. The petition is accordingly dismissed.