MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE and another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that modified the conviction of respondent No. 1 from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (murder) to Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (causing disappearance of evidence). The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence by converting the conviction where the only incriminating evidence against the respondent was the recovery of the deceased's body at his pointation from a house in joint possession. The Supreme Court observed that there was no evidence establishing the respondent's exclusive possession of the house or any other incriminating material linking him to the murder. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was legally sound and did not warrant interference. The key principle laid down is that recovery of a dead body at the pointation of an accused, in the absence of other incriminating evidence or proof of exclusive possession of the premises, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.
- Is the recovery of a dead body at the pointation of an accused sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder when the premises are in joint possession?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained solely on the basis of a pointation recovery without other incriminating evidence?
- Does the lack of exclusive possession of a premises where a body is recovered undermine a murder charge?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' TANV1R AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 9-10-2001 of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the convictions and sentences of respondent No,1, Muhammad Shafique, were converted from section 302, P.P.C. To section 201, P.P.C.
2. And sentenced him to seven years R.I. With a fine of Rs,20,000 or in default to suffer two years' R.I.
3. Benefit of section 382-B. Cr.P.C. Was also extended to him.
4. ' Briefly stated facts of the case are that F.I.R. No,452 was got recorded on 20-11-1994 at 4-10 p.m. At Police Station Jhang Bazar, Faisalabad. It was the case of the complainant that he alongwith Sultan son of Shames was present in the house of Munir Hussain in Firdous Colony, Faisalabad, in connection with some family settlement, when Shah Nawaz, Atta Muhammad and Manzoor Hussain (acquitted accused) alongwith respondent No,1 Muhammad Shafique came there. Shah Nawaz asked Munir Hussain as to why he used to give beating to his sister i.e, wife of Munir Hussain deceased. There was a grappling among the accused and they were separated. On the next day i.e, on 26-11-1994 the complainant alongwith his brother Gulzar Ahmad (P.W.9) came to the house of the deceased to settle the property dispute. However, the deceased could not be found out and in the Baithak they saw stains of blood on the cot as well as on the walls. The complainant suspected some foulplay whereafter he came to know that dead body of the deceased had been transmitted through a wagon by respondent No,1 Muhammad Shafique.
5. ' After usual investigation the challan against the accused was submitted. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to establish its case. When the accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. They denied their participation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, after scanning the evidence brought on record, acquitted Shah Nawaz, Atta Muhammad and Manzoor Hussain accused and sentenced Muhammad Shafique (respondent No,1), to death under section 302, P.P.C.
6. ' Respondent No,1 filed Criminal Appeal No,934 of 1996 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, assailing his convictions-and sentences while the learned trial Court forwarded aforesaid murder reference for confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence imposed upon respondent No,!.
7. ' A learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through its judgment dated 9-10-2001 dismissed the appeal of respondent No,1 by modifying his sentence of death to seven years R.I.
8. From section 302, P.P.C. To section 201, P.P.C. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
9. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the record that dead body of the deceased was found from the house at the pointation of respondent No,1 Muhammad Shafique which was in joint possession of the parties. There is no evidence on record that the house was in his exclusive possession. Apart from this, there is no incriminating evidence against respondentNo,1 except that the dead body was recovered at his pointation. In these circumstances, since there is no other incriminating material available on record against respondent No .1 and the learned counsel for the petitioner in spite of our repeated queries has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
10. Resultantly, for the foregoing discussion, the instant petition being without any force is dismissed and . ,
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. Shabana Kausar, The State vs The State, Mst. Shabana Kausar 2023 LHC 5484, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 449