DOST MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 11-1-1993, whereby the petitioner's conviction under section 302 and section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Sessions Judge, Vehari, was maintained, though the death sentence was converted to life imprisonment. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence, the establishment of guilt through eyewitness testimony, and the validity of the plea of self-defense. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through prompt lodging of the F.I.R., corroborated by injured and eyewitness testimonies, and that the plea of self-defense was rightly discarded by the courts below without any misreading of evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is consistent, corroborated by a prompt F.I.R., and the occurrence is admitted by the accused with an untenable plea of self-defense, concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts will not be disturbed.
- Whether the plea of self-defense can be sustained when the prosecution case is established through prompt F.I.R. and consistent eyewitness testimony?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter?
- Whether ocular testimony of an injured witness provides sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 11-1-1993.
2. The facts to be noted are that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, under section 302, P.P.C., to death and fine, by the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari. He was also convicted and sentence under section 307, P.P.C., with imprisonment and fine. His conviction was maintained by the High Court. However, his sentence of death was converted into life imprisonment.
3. According to the prosecution, on 20-12-1986 the complainant was sitting in front of his shop along with his brother Shama and his son Nazir Ahmed when the petitioner came there and gave threats, and after change of hot words the petitioner brought a hatchet from his house and gave hatchet blow on the forehead of Shama. Nazir Ahmad deceased intervened to rescue Shama, but the petitioner gave hatchet blow on the neck of Nazir. In order to bring home the charge against the petitioner, the statements of Ghulam Muhammad P.W.8 and Shama P.W.9 were recorded. They witnessed the occurrence. They have corroborated the prosecution version. The petitioner admitted that he had caused injuries to the deceased, but he took up the plea of self-defense.
Before the High Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not argue the case on merits. He it also did not raise the plea of self-defense and submitted that the sentence be reduced. The learned High Court has attended to the facts of the case and recorded the following findings:- "We find that the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and infliction of injuries to the deceased and Shama P.W. Are admitted facts of the case. We have also considered the statement of the appellant and plea of self-defense in accordance with the guiding principle laid down by the superior Courts for the appreciation of evidence in such like cases. We find that it is a case of single accused, day time occurrence and promptly lodged F.I.R. Wherein name of the appellant, weapon of offence used by him, manner of the occurrence, names of the eyewitnesses and motive for the commission of crime are mentioned. It is proved from the evidence that the F.I.R. Exh.PF is a genuine document which has safely been used to corroborate the statement of its maker namely Ghulam Muhammad P.W.8. The statement of Ghulam Muhammad P.W.8 regarding the murder of Nazir has fully been corroborated by P.W.9 Shama, the injured witness."
4. It is a case of single accused, who came to the spot armed with hatchet. The plea of self- defiance was rightly discarded. The learned High Court has assessed the case of the prosecution in juxtaposition to the case of the defense. There is no misreading of evidence.
' This petition has no substance. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for refused. .