PERVAIZ AHMAD alias PAIJI Versus THE STATE

SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J---The petitioner, Pervaiz Ahmad alias Paija, was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, for the murder of Mst. Noor Begum. The trial Court convicted the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death plus fine of Rs,2,000 and in default whereof to undergo R.I. For 3 months. The fine, on recovery, was . Ordered to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner was also convicted and sentenced under section 452, P.P.C. And was ordered to undergo R.I. For two years. The High Court while considering Murder Reference and the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence as aforesaid, confirmed the death sentence and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. According to the prosecution, Mst. Zubaida, daughter of the complainant in the case, was married to Zafar Iqbal. After 4 months of the marriage, the petitioner abducted her from her village whereupon a case under section 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against him at the instance of husband of Mst. Zubaida (Zafar Iqbal). Mst. Zubaida was subsequently restored to the complainant and she started living with her parents. On the day of occurrence, while the complainant was sitting in the courtyard of his house alongwith his wife Mst. Noor Begum (deceased in the case) and daughter Mst. Irshad Begum (P.W. 1), the petitioner entered the house at about 7-30 p.m. And enquired from the complainant about whereabouts of Mst. Zubaida and further stated that he had come to take her with him. The complainant and his, deceased wife approached the petitioner in order to garb him but he fired from his gun which hit Mst. Noor Begum at her chest and she fell down in the courtyard of the house. The complainant, however, caught the petitioner and snatched from him the fire-arm (his gun). While the complainant was garbling with the petitioner, P.W. 12 Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Bashir (given up P.W.) reached the spot. On seeing the P.Ws, the petitioner managed to run away from the scene of the offence. Mst. Noor Begum died within few minutes of the incident. After usual investigation, the petitioner was tried and sentenced as aforesaid which was upheld by the High Court on appeal. The trial Court as well as the High Court after analysing the prosecution evidence in the case reached the conclusion that the prosecution case has been established beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid.

In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the prosecution evidence in the case was interested as all the witnesses were related to the deceased. It is also contended by the learned counsel that it was highly improbable that the petitioner would \have gone to the house of the complainant to enquire about Mst. Zubaida after he was involved in a case under section 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, by the husband of Mst. Zubaida. The learned counsel also criticised the evidence of Mst. Irshad Begum (P.W. 11) and contended that her presence at the scene of offence was unnatural, as she was a married woman and she should have been at her own house and no reasonable explanation was available in her evidence for being present at the house of complainant at the time of incident. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the incident had taken place at 7-30 p.m. And it was not possible for the complainant or witnesses to have identified the petitioner in the dark. All the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were considered both by the trial Court as well as the learned Judges of the High Court and were repelled. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any misreading of the evidence by the two Courts below while analysing prosecution evidence in the case. Mere fact that on reappraisal of the evidence another view of the evidence in the case is possible, is no ground for granting leave to appeal. There is no substance in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. It is, however, observed that as the death sentence in the case was awarded by the Sessions Judge on 22-3-1987, the case of the petitioner is covered by the amnesty granted by the President of Pakistan in 1988 and, accordingly, the death sentence is commuted to that of imprisonment for life.