MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the confirmation of a death sentence by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner, a former employee of the complainant, was convicted of murdering the complainant's sister, Mst. Shamim, following a dispute over a marriage proposal and the victim's subsequent engagement to another person. The core legal questions addressed were whether the prosecution's eyewitness account was physically impossible given the speed of the attack and the proximity of witnesses, and whether discrepancies in the post-mortem report regarding the time of death undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court held that the nature of the injuries, which were severe and consistent with the weapon used, could be inflicted in a short timeframe, and that the witnesses' inability to intervene in time was plausible. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the medical report's estimation of the time of death created a fatal inconsistency, noting the margin of error inherent in such reports. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the evidence sufficiently established the petitioner's guilt.
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the defense argues that the time of death estimated in a post-mortem report conflicts with the alleged time of occurrence?
- Is it physically impossible for an assailant to inflict fatal injuries with a hatchet in the presence of witnesses who are only a few steps away?
- Does an old rupture of the hymen in a post-mortem report provide sufficient grounds to infer that a murder was committed by a family member due to suspected chastity?
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---This jail petition arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench whereby the death sentence awarded to the petitioner has been confirmed.
2. According to the FIR, Muhammad Younus petitioner was serving as a tractor driver with the complainant for the last five years before the occurrence. The petitioner used to visit the house of the complainant and asked for the hand of his sister Mst. Shamim for marriage, which was declined as it was not customary with his family to marry their girls outside the Beraderi. Few days thereafter he teased Mst. Shamim upon which he was admonished and removed from service. It was alleged that few days before the occurrence Mst. Shamim was engaged with Iqbal, her Khalazad. This had annoyed the petitioner. On the day of occurrence the complainant was building a Kotha in the land of Fazal Karim near the Government tubewell with the help of Muhammad Shaban and Muhammad Aslam P.Ws. At Aserwela. Mst. Shamim went to bring water from her water pump, which was at a distance of five karams from the Kotha under construction. Petitioner came there holding hatchet (Kulhari) and after giving a Lalkara he gave a hatchet blow on her neck as a result of which she fell down. Thereafter he struck more blows with hatchet on the neck of Mst.
Shamim as a result of which her neck was cut. The complainant, Muhammad Shaban and Muhammad Aslam, witnesses, went to catch hold of the petitioner, but he ran away threatening with dire consequences.
3. Mr. M. Bilal, learned counsel pointed out to the injuries suffered by the deceased and contended that as the P.WS. Were few steps away from the place of incident, it was impossible that the petitioner within such a short span of time after giving Lalkara could have caused such injuries.
From the testimony of prosecution witnesses it is clear that the petitioner is stated to have struck two to three blows on the neck of Mst. Shamim. The medical report also states that "the whole neck cut. Only skin was attached to the left side. The dimension of the wound was 14 cm. At the back of the neck. The sixth cervical vertebrae was divided sharply" and "there was another wound 10 c.m.
On right side of the neck" and a wound on the anterior surface of neck 18 c.m. Long and incised wound measuring 9 c.m. x 2 c.m. And anterior surface of upper part of left shoulder. The clavical at this area was cut partially". The nature of injuries suffered can reasonably be attributed to two to three blows which were hit on the neck of Mst. Shamim The blade of the hatchet was about 4-1/2 inches wide. Such injury as suffered by the deceased could be caused in a very short span of time.
The P.Ws., who were present on the scene, were busy in constructing the Kotha and would have been attracted and rushed towards the scene, but the manner in which the incident has occurred, they may not have reached before the end.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that according to the post-mortem report the time between injuries and death was within one hour while between death and post-mortem examination it was between 24 hours. The learned counsel pointed out that as the incident had occurred on 17-10-1988 at Aserwela and the post-mortem examination was conducted on 18-10- 1988 at 8-00 a.m., the lapse of time mentioned by the Doctor does not coincide with the time at which the incident is alleged to have occurred. The medical report only states that the time between death and post-mortem examination was between 24 hours. This leaves a wide margin and would not mean to say that it was exactly 24 hours.
5. The learned counsel then contended that the murder was committed by deceased's brother as he had suspected her chastity. In this respect he has referred to the medical report according to which deceased's hymen had old rupture. This is a far-fetched inference to be drawn from this statement in the medical report. In our view no ground for grant of leave has been made out.
Petition is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Yasin, etc. vs Addl. District Judge, etc. 2014 C.L.R. 369
- MUHAMMAD YASIN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 2016 YLRN 203