ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the High Court that acquitted two respondents of murder charges. The respondents were initially convicted by the trial court under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Yar, based on allegations of illicit relations and motive. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its reappraisal of the evidence, specifically regarding motive, recovery of weapons, and extra-judicial confession. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal, finding that the lower court had properly appraised the evidence. The High Court had correctly discarded the motive as unnatural, rejected the recovery of weapons from an open place as unreliable, and dismissed the extra-judicial confession because the witnesses failed to produce the accused before the police despite the alleged confession. The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court's reasoning was sound and based on a proper perspective of the evidence, concluding that there was no merit in the petition for leave to appeal.
- Can an extra-judicial confession be discarded if the witnesses fail to produce the accused before the police after the alleged confession?
- Is the recovery of crime weapons from an open place, not in the possession of the accused, sufficient to sustain a conviction?
- Does evidence of motive that is deemed unnatural by the High Court warrant the rejection of that evidence in a criminal appeal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 2-11-1993, whereby respondents Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted by the High Court.
2. The brief facts of this case are that a report as lodged by P.W.5 Ali Muhammad against the respondents for the murder of Muhammad Yar deceased. The motive for the occurrence was that respondents for the murder of Muhammad Yar deceased. The motive for the occurrence was that respondent No,2, wife of the deceased, had illicit relations with respondent No,1 that the deceased used to quarrel with respondent No,2 and had also stopped respondent No,1 to visit his house. The learned trial Judge convicted the respondents and sentenced them under section 302/34, P.P.C. To undergo 25 years' R.I. Each. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal against their conviction, which has been accepted by the impugned judgment.
3. There is no ocular testimony of the occurrence. The case against the respondent rests on the motive, recovery and extra-judicial confession. The High Court for sound reasons has discarded these pieces of evidence. As regards the motive, P.W. 7 stated that he accompanied Muhammad Yar to the house of parents of Mst. Muniran and Muhammad Hussain was also present there. The witness requested the father of Mst. Muniran to send her with her husband, but Muhammad Hussain stated that she would live along with him. He further stated that in his presence Muhammad Hussain and Mst. Muniran cut jokes with each other. The High Court rightly rejected this piece of evidence as unnatural. It observed that "it is surprising that the appellants had cut jokes in presence of P.W.7, the deceased, the parents and sisters of Mst. Muniran, which does not sound to the reason." The reasons advanced by the High Court cannot be termed as imagine or uncalled for. Similarly the recoveries have been discarded, as the crime weapons P.14 and P.15 were secured by the police from an open place, which were not in possession of the accused Muhammad Hussain. P.Ws. 12 and 13 had visited the place of occurrence, but they had not found the incriminating articles. The extra-judicial confession was discarded for the reason that the appellants had made extra-judicial confession before P.Ws. 9 and 10, they had asked them to come after two days when the police would be visiting the spot. They were not produced before the police, after they had made extra-judicial confession. There is nothing wrong to the above reasoning of the High Court. The learned Single Judge has properly appraised the evidence in true perspective.
' There is no force in this petition. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for refused.
Cited by 1 case
- MUNIR AHMED and anothers vs THE STATE 2001 YLR 2370