ALLAH DAD and anothers vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for murder and murderous assault. The appellants were originally convicted by the trial court under Sections 302, 307, and 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with death sentences imposed on the appellants. The Lahore High Court maintained the convictions but altered the death sentence of one appellant to life imprisonment. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants challenged the identification of the accused, arguing that the occurrence took place at night. The Supreme Court held that the eyewitnesses were natural, being inmates of the house, and that the appellants were known to them. Finding no misreading of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the convictions. However, regarding the sentencing, the Court held that because the evidence did not conclusively establish which specific appellant fired the fatal shot, the death sentence was inappropriate. Consequently, the Court substituted the death sentence with imprisonment for life, while maintaining other sentences and granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Is the Supreme Court required to perform a fresh reappraisal of evidence when two lower courts have already concurrently found the accused guilty?
- Can a death sentence be maintained when the evidence fails to conclusively establish which of the co-accused fired the fatal shot?
- Are eyewitnesses who are inmates of the house where the crime occurred considered natural witnesses?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 449, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances.
1. Allah Ditta and Allah Dad appellants alongwith two others namely Nawaz and Manzoor were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. For the murder of Khuda Bakhsh and murderous assault upon Mst. Niamat Bibi in the night between 11/12- 10-1983 in the area of Chak No, 166/10-R, Tehsil and District Khanewal. All the four were found guilty under section 302/34, P.P.C. The appellants were sentenced to death and a fine of Rs,10,000 each, in default to suffer three years' S.I. Each. They were also convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. And each of them sentenced to ten years' RI., and fine of rupees five thousand each, in default two years' S.I. Each. Under section 449, P.P.C. Each of them was sentenced to three years' R.I. Plus fine of rupees three thousand, in default to further undergo one year S.I. Each. The other two accused namely Manzoor and Nawaz were also convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. But were sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine of rupees seven thousand each, in default to further undergo two years' S.I. They were convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. Each and sentenced to five years' R.I.
With fine of rupees three thousand, in default to undergo one year S.I. Each. Under section 449, P.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. Plus fine of rupees three thousand each, in default to further undergo one year Si. Each. The fines, if recovered, were to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. This is vide judgment dated 27-10-1986. On convicts' appeal and murder reference, the last two accused namely Nawaz and Manzoor were acquitted. The conviction of the appellants Allah Ditta and Allah Dad under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was maintained. Sentence of death awarded to Allah Ditta was confirmed but that of Allah Dad altered from death to one for life imprisonment, leaving other sentences undisturbed. This is vide judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 12-3-1990.
2. Contentions of the learned counsel for the convict-appellants is that the two eye-witnesses had not seen the occurrence and could not identify the appellants, it being night time.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find that the eyewitnesses were natural being inmates of the house and the appellants known to them. The learned trial Court found the two appellants guilty on the basis of the evidence on record. The evidence war minutely reappraised by the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court who upheld their conviction. No misreading of evidence has been pointed out. Further reappraisal of evidence is not the function of this Court. The two appellants having been found guilty by the two Courts below, no interference is called for as regards their conviction. However, as it is not certain from the. Evidence on record that it was the shot of Allah Dina which killed the deceased and not of the other appellant, sentence of death awarded to Allah Ditta is substituted by the alternate sentence of imprisonment for life.
Other sentences are maintained. These shall run concurrently and the appellants shall get benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Sentence reduced.
Cited by 12 cases
- Muhammad Riaz, etc vs State and another PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 548
- MUHAMMAD JAVED vs The STATE and another 2019 YLR 1208
- (1) Muhammad Boota and 3 others (2) The State vs (1) The State and 2017 LHC 4041
- MUHAMMAD RIZWAN Versus State 2016 YLRN 102
- ABDUL HAKEEM MALAH vs The STATE 2015 MLD 1546
- ASGHAR ALI and another vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 1523
- ASGHAR ALI and another vs STATE PLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Lahore) 728
- INTIZAR AHMAD alias TAHIRI Versus State 2010 MLD 1879
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus State 2008 SCMR 1082
- SATTAR alias SATTI and another vs THE STATE and another 2005 PLD Karachi 151
- ALIMDAD alias KHAN vs THE STATE 2002 P Cr. L J 1785
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus THE STATE 1997 PCRLJ 321