JABBIR vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of the deceased, Ghulam Muhammad, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment, which upheld his conviction and life imprisonment sentence. The core legal question was whether the petitioner acted in self-defence, as claimed in his counter-version, or if the prosecution successfully proved the charge of murder. The Supreme Court examined the ocular testimony provided by the complainant and an independent witness, alongside the recovery of the blood-stained weapon. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence was credible and consistent, while the petitioner's plea of self-defence was implausible, particularly noting that the deceased, allegedly armed with a larger tool, would not have allowed the petitioner to approach him. The Court affirmed the lower courts' rejection of the defence version. The key principle laid down is that a plea of self-defence must be consistent with the physical realities of the occurrence; where the prosecution evidence is corroborated by independent witnesses and forensic recovery, a contradictory and improbable defence version is rightly rejected.
- Can a plea of self-defence be accepted when the physical circumstances of the assault render the claim implausible?
- Is the testimony of an independent witness sufficient to corroborate the ocular account of a complainant in a murder case?
- Does the recovery of a blood-stained weapon, supported by a serologist's report, provide sufficient corroboration for a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Jabbir petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 4-11-1992 whereby his Criminal Appeal No, 735/1989 challenging his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,5,000 under section 302, P.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Murad father of Sultan complainant and Ghulam Muhammad deceased owned 1 Kanal and 14 Marlas of land in Killa No, 5 of Square No, 100 out of which an area measuring 7 Marlas was illegally occupied by Pehlwan father of Jabbir petitioner.
The complainant party submitted an application to the revenue authorities for demarcation and possession of aforesaid 7 Marlas of land. A day prior to the occurrence, Zulfiqar Ali, Girdawar came to the spot and demarcated the land by fixing Burjees around it in the presence of Jabbir petitioner, his brother Zafar and their father Pehlwan. However the accused party did not sign/thumb-mark the demarcation proceedings. The petitioner threw a challenge that the complainant party would be taught a lesson for having the land demarcated. On the next day i,e.
10-4-1988 at 8-00 a.m. Sultan complainant, his brother Ghulam Muhammad deceased, Ramzan P.W. And Zulfiqar (not produced) were going to village Jagwana. When they reached near the shop of Muhammad Abdullah the petitioner suddenly confronted them armed with a knife and after raising a Lalkara gave knife blows to Ghulam Muhammad deceased hitting the inner side of his left thigh, back side of right shoulder and back side of left shoulder. The complainant and his companions tried to apprehend the petitioner but he threatened them with knife and fled away.
Ghulam Muhammad injured expired soon after. Leaving Zulfiqar to guard the dead body, Sultan complainant left for Police Station. Ghulam Muhammad Sub-Inspector met him on the way at Kot Mopal at 10-00 a.m. And he reported the occurrence to him vide his statement Exh. PD on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Was recorded at the police station at 10-45 a.m.
3. During the investigation the petitioner who was arrested on 12-4-1988 led to the recovery of blood-stained knife P4 which was made into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. PJ. As per Serologist's report it was stained with human blood.
4. In support of its case the prosecution examined eight witnesses in all and its main stay was the testimony of Sultan complainant and Ramzan P.W.7 who furnished the ocular account of the occurrence. The prosecution also relied on the evidence relating to recovery of knife from the petitioner.
5. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution's allegation against him. He admitted having injured the deceased but gave a counter version of the occurrence as under:-- "Ghulam Muhammad deceased in the morning time had trespassed in the land which was in our possession, and forcibly and illegally wanted to construct a wall. On my intervention, he attacked me with a Kassi, apprehending danger to my life, I acted in self-defence of my person and property."
' He chose not to make any statement on oath in disproof of the allegation against him. He, however, examined Nazir Ahmed School Teacher as a defence witness who appeared with a register and stated that the dates of birth of Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Zafar brothers of the petitioner were 11-11-1960 and 10-10-1962 respectively.
6. After examining the evidence on the record the Courts below rejected the defence version and relying on the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective. According to him the defence version was more plausible than the prosecution case. We have considered this submission in the light of evidence available on the record. It is a case of single accused and the occurrence which is admitted even by the petitioner but in a different manner took place in the broad daylight. Sultan complainant is, no doubt, the brother of the deceased but he was supported in all material particulars by Ramzan P.W.7 an unconnected person having no relationship with the complainant party or enmity with the petitioner. The Courts below have given cogent reasons for rejecting the defence version which need not be repeated here. It may, however, be mentioned that the petitioner being armed with a knife the deceased, if he was armed with Kassi having a much larger handle than the knife, would not have permitted the petitioner to come near him in order to assault him. In the circumstances the defence version was rightly rejected by the Courts below. There is no substance in this petition and the same is dismissed.