RASHID vs STATE
This matter concerns two jail criminal appeals filed against a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda, which convicted the appellants for the murder of Muhammad Shuaib. The core legal question was whether the trial court's appreciation of the prosecution evidence, including the testimony of eighteen witnesses, the appellants' confessional statements, and the identification parade, was legally sound or if it suffered from misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court properly assessed the evidence and that the appellants failed to rebut the prosecution's case, particularly given their failure to produce defense evidence or testify on oath. The court found no illegality, material irregularity, or perversity in the trial court's judgment. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is consistent, identification is established, and the accused fails to provide a credible defense or rebut allegations under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the appellate court will not interfere with a conviction that is based on a proper assessment of the record.
- Does the failure of an accused to produce evidence in defense or testify on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 weaken their position against prosecution evidence?
- Can an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment if the trial court has properly assessed and discussed the prosecution evidence?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution evidence is consistent and the accused fails to rebut allegations made in their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.---By this single judgment we propose to dispose of Jail Criminal Appeals Nos.250 of 1994 and 257 of 1994 because the same have arisen out of the same judgment.
2. The appellants alongwith the absconding accused stand charged for having killed Muhammad Shuaib son of Younis by firing at him with lethal weapon on 23-11-1988 at 0600 hours.
3. There is no need to give the history of the case in hand, in detail, because the same has been elaborately given by the Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda (Syed Afsar Shah) in his judgment recorded on 1-9-1994.
4. After conducting the usual Police Investigation complete challan against the appellant-accused was submitted in the trial Court.
5. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced the following witnesses: ' P.W.1. Said Badshah.
' P.W.2. Shah Zaman, L.H.C.
' P.W.3 Sadbar D.F.C.
' P.W.4 Sajjad Ali, H.C.
' P.W.5 Jan Muhammad (deceased)
' P.W.6 Gul Karim.
' P.W.7 Muhammad Saeed.
' P.W.8 Nasir.
' P.W.9 Muhammad Israr.
' P.W.10 Fazal Khaliq.
' P.W.11 Gulab Khan, A.S.-I.
' P.W.12 Haji Habibur Rehman.
' P.W.13 Muhammad Aqdas, Naib-Tehsildar.
' P.W.14 Khaliq Khan, S.-I. Then S.H.O.
' P.W.15 Muhammad Sher Khan, S.H.O.
' P.W.16 Dr. Iftikhar Ali, M.O.
' P.W.17 Adalat Khan the then MIC.
' P.W.18.Muhammad Akbar Khan the then MIC.
6. At the end of the trial the appellants were found guilty and, thus, convicted under section 302/149, P.P.C. And sentenced to life imprisonment each with a fine of Rs.50,000 each or in default thereof to undergo further S.-I. For one year each. The appellants were also convicted under section 148, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo one year R.I. Each. It was directed that the compensation amount, if realized, be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased under. Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The appellant was, however, given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment the appellants have filed these appeals from jail.
7. Mr. Jehanzeb Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Khawaja Muhammad Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant and Kh. Azhar Rashid, learned Assistant Advocate- General for the State present and heard. Record of the case perused carefully.
8. In this case 18 P.Ws. Were examined. A perusal of the cross-examination of the complainant would show that nothing should be brought on record to suggest even remotely that he had any enmity/animosity or ill-will towards the appellants which had prompted him to implicate them falsely in the present case. On the other hand, the appellant-accused in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Could not rebut the allegation of the complainant made in his statement on oath. It may be pointed out that the appellants chose not to produce any evidence in their defense and also to be examined on oath as their own witnesses under section 340(2), Cr. P . C .
9. It is also a matter of record that confessional statements of both the appellants were correctly recorded. Besides identification parade in respect of Rashid Khan appellant was repeatedly held and he was duly identified. The question of mistaken identity, therefore, does not arise. Admittedly the matter was reported promptly i.e., within a short span of time.
10. In the circumstances we are of the view that learned counsel for the appellants has failed to convince us that the Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda has either misread or non-read the evidence produced before him by the prosecution. Contrary to this a perusal of the impugned judgment would show that he has assessed/appreciated the prosecution evidence properly, and after discussing the same alongwith the case-law, produced before him, he has given valid reasons for his conclusion. In the circumstances we are of the view that the trial Court has committed no illegality/or material irregularity and that its judgment is neither arbitrary nor perverse. Accordingly we are not inclined to interfere with the verdict recorded by the trial Court.
11. These appeals are without any substance and are accordingly dismissed.