HAMID ULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ZAM AN and 3 others
This matter arises from petitions challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court relating to a murder case where the trial court had convicted certain accused persons under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's decision to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment and to acquit a co-accused on the basis of suppressed injuries sustained by a person on the accused party's side. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that the suppression of injuries on the defense side warranted the commutation of the death sentence and that the acquittal of the co-accused was based on cogent reasons. The Supreme Court established that the suppression of material facts and injuries by the prosecution regarding the occurrence can form a valid basis for mitigating a sentence from death to life imprisonment, and dismissed both the complainant's petition for leave to appeal and the convict's time-barred jail petition.
- Does the suppression of injuries on the accused side by the prosecution justify the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether the High Court's acquittal of a co-accused based on the benefit of the doubt warrants interference by the Supreme Court when supported by cogent reasons?
- Can a jail petition barred by significant delay be entertained when ample ocular evidence connects the convict to the crime?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-E(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---Facts leading to the filing of above petitons are that Gull Jehan (petitioner in Jail Petition No, 204 of 1999) and Muhammad Zaman, Muhammad Amir and Abdul Sattar (respondents in Criminal Petition No,445-L of 1999) were reported against for the murder of Aziz Ullah. Learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 9-6-1994 found Gull Jehan guilty under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death with fine of Rs,20,000 or in default one year's R.I. Under section 337-E(c) respondent Muhammad Zaman was directed to pay Daman of Rs,10,000 to Mst.
Amiran P.W. Or suffer R.I. For one year and also R.I. For one year as Tazeer. Respondent Muhammad Amir was given benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges. Abdul Sattar was found guilty under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs,20,000 or in default thereof one year R.I. The convicts appealed. A learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide judgment dated 9-6-1999 converted the sentence of Gull Jehan from death to life with direction to pay compensation of Rs, One lac to the legal heirs of deceased. The appeal of Muhammad Zaman was dismissed while appeal to the extent of Abdul Sattar was accepted, he was given benefit of doubt and acquitted. Through Criminal Petition No, 445-L of 1992, the complainant has challenged the impugned judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore.
2. Convict Gull Jehan has also filed jail petition challenging his conviction and sentence.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and with his assistance gone through the file. There is no doubt that a lady on the side of complainant was also injured and she did make statement in Court. The reason which found favour with the learned Appellate Court was that a lady from accused side was also injured whose injuries were suppressed by the prosecution. On the other hand, the accused persons in their statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Gave a different version whereby they also alleged that Mst. Azmat Khatoon belonging to the side of accused was also injured and had received fire-arm injury. In view of the suppression of injury of Mst. Azmat Khatoon, the High Court rightly concluded that death sentence of Gull Jehan could not be maintained and therefore, altered the same to imprisonment for life. As far accused Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Amir are concerned, the reasons advanced by the learned Division Bench are cogent and no exception can be taken to the same.
4. The result of above discussion is that learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has not been able to make out any case which could call for interference by this Court. Resultantly, Criminal Petition No,445-L of 1999 fails which is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
5. Jail Petition No,204 of 1999 filed by convict Gull Jehan also fails on the ground that is barred by 96 days, as well as there is ample evidence which connects him with the alleged occurrence, and ocular account was rightly relied upon by both the Courts below. Jail petition fails which is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.