MUHAMMAD ALAM vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal, by leave of the Supreme Court, challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his nephew. The appellant was originally convicted by the trial court under Section 302(b) and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and whether the capital sentence was justified, given the appellant's plea of self-defence arising from a sudden fight. Upon re-appraisal of the evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts, noting that the ocular testimony was natural and reliable. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt and that no mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a reduction in the sentence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction and the death sentence, emphasizing that the appellant’s brutal act of killing his nephew over a petty issue justified the capital punishment awarded.
- Does a plea of self-defence in a murder case require corroboration when the ocular evidence is found to be natural and reliable?
- Can the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a criminal appeal to determine the quantum of sentence?
- Is a death sentence justified where the murder was committed in a brutal manner without mitigating circumstances?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against judgment dated 16-12-1998 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in Criminal Appeal No,219 of 1996 and Murder Reference No,65 of 1996.
2. Appellant Muhammad Alam alongwith other co-accused was tried for the murder of Ishtiaq Ahmed deceased by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, who vide judgment dated 24-7-1996, convicted the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to death and to pay compensation of Rs,50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default thereof to suffer six months' R.I. Appellant was also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,5,000, or in default to undergo further R.I. For one year. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to him. The co-accused were acquitted of the charge by giving them the benefit of doubt.
3. Appellant tiled appeal before the High Court challenging his conviction and sentence, which on re-assessm ent and re-evaluation of the evidence was dismissed by the learned High Court.
4. Feeling dissatisfied, appellant filed a jail petition, in which leave toappeal was granted for re- appraisal of evidence for the purposes of determining the quantum of sentence and in the interest of safe administration of justice vide order, dated 20-1-2000.
5. We have heard Mr. Ainul Haq, learned counsel for the appellant, who inter alia, contended that it was a sudden fight; the prosecution did not prove the motive; and the prosecution story, being false, is not proved on record. Therefore, the death sentence awarded to the appellant is not justified and the same may be modified to imprisonment for life.
6. Ch. Arshad Ali, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the State pointed out that the appellant caused fire-arm injury on the person of deceased and that Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence. The appellant has caused the death of deceased in a callous and brutal manner and that for his wanton act he has rightly been convicted and awarded capital punishment.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully examined/analyzed the record. The incident occurred in the broad daylight. Appellant is real maternal uncle of deceased Ishtiaq Ahmad. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Took the plea that it was a sudden fight and deceased made, a murderous assault on him with a Kassi and he, in order to save himself and in the right of his self-defence tired with .12 bore gun, which hit the deceased and that the complainant and other P.Ws. Were not present at the time of occurrence at the spot. The Courts below disbelieved the version of the appellant and found the ocular account furnished by Zahid Pervaiz and Dilawar Hussain to be natural, trustworthy and reliable. Zahid Pervaiz is also real nephew of appellant and the Courts below rightly believed his version. The appellant through his brutal act caused the cold-blooded murder of his nephew on a very petty issue.
8. We have given our anxious consideration to every aspect of the case but see no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. Also, no mitigating circumstance exists on, record to consider the question of quantum of sentence in this case. In our considered view, the prosecution has very successfully brought home the guilt of the appellant.
9. For the facts, reasons, and circumstances stated hereinabove, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is maintained.