IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Appeal No. D – 18 of 2012
Before;
Mr.
Justice Muhammad Iqbal Mahar
Mr.
Justice Irshad Ali Shah
Appellant: Jinsar, through Mr. Rukshar Ahmed M.Junejo
Advocate
Respondent: The State,
through Syed Sardar Ali Shah,
Deputy
Prosecutor General
Date of hearing: 05.03.2019
Date of decision: 14.03.2019
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J; The appellant by preferring instant Criminal Jail Appeal has
impugned judgment dated 21.03.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
Kandiaro, whereby he for an offence punishable u/s 302(b) PPC for having
committed Qatl-e-amd of Liaquat Ali by causing him fire shot injuries, has been
convicted and sentenced to death and
shall be hanged by his neck till he is died with fine of Rs.100,000/-
payable to the legal heirs of the said deceased as compensation and in case of
his failure to make payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months.
2. The facts in brief necessary for
disposal of Criminal Appeal are that the appellant with rest of the culprits in
prosecution of their object committed Qatl-e-amd of Liaquat Ali by causing him
fire shot injuries for that he was booked and reported upon by the police to
face trial for the above said offence.
3. At
trial, the appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and the prosecution to prove it,
examined PW-1 complainant Ali Hassan (Ex.27.); PW-2 Shoukat Ali Bhatt (Ex.28);
PW-3 Medical officer Dr. Nisar Ahmed Abbasi (Ex.29); PW-4 Khamiso Khan (Ex.29);
PW-5 Tapedar Mumtaz Ali (Ex.32); PW-6 SIO/Inspector Qurban Ali Pathan (Ex.33);
PW-7 Mashir PC Muhammad Aslam (Ex.34), he produced memo of arrest and recovery
of unlicensed pistol from the appellant and then closed the side.
4. The
appellant in his statement recorded u/s 342 Cr.P C denied the prosecution’s
allegation by pleading innocence, he did not examine anyone in his defence or
himself on oath in disproof of the prosecution allegation.
5. On
evaluation of the evidence, so produced by the prosecution, the learned trial
Judge awarded death penalty to the appellant with fine / compensation as is
detailed above and then has made a Reference to this Court for confirmation of
death sentence in terms of Section 374 Cr.P.C.
6. It is contended by learned counsel
for the appellant that the appellant being innocent has been involved in this
case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy their dispute with him
over matrimonial affairs; there is no motive of the incident; the deceased has
committed suicide; the complainant and his witnesses being interested have been
believed by learned trial Court without lawful justification; there is no
independent witness to the incident; the appellant at the time of incident was
juvenile offender and he ought not to have been tried or awarded death penalty
by a regular Court. By contending so, he sought for acquittal of the appellant
as according to him co-accused Arbab Ali, Muharam Ali, Wazir, Mst. Ameeran and
Mazhar Ali have already been acquitted by this Court in earlier round of
litigation. In support his contention, he relied upon the case of Sultan
Ahmed vs. Additional Sessions Judge-I and others (PLD 2004 SC 758).
7. It
is contended by learned DPG for the State that the appellant is neither
innocent nor is involved in this case falsely by the complainant party, he has
committed the brutal murder of deceased during marriage ceremony only to
satisfy his grudge with him (deceased) as he was intending to marry Mst.
Ameeran who was going to be wife of the deceased; he after commission of incident preferred to go in absconsion for about
four years and he has never taken plea of being juvenile before learned trial
Court; same he as such could not take before this Court only to save him from
legal consequences and co‑accused who have already been acquitted
by this Court were having a different role as their names were not appearing in
FIR of the incident. By contending so, he sought for dismissal of instant
Criminal Jail Appeal and confirmation of death sentence to the appellant. In
support of his contention, he has relied upon cases of Wahid vs. The State (PLD 2002 SC
62) and Noor Muhammad vs. The State ( 2005 SCMR 1958).
8. We have considered the above arguments
and perused the record.
9. The
unnatural death of deceased Liaquat Ali is proved of evidence of Medical
Officer Dr. Nisar Ahmed. Now is to be examined the liability of the appellant
towards the above said incident.
10. At
the very outset, it would appropriate to mention here that the names of
co-accused Arbab Ali, Muharam Ali, Wazir, Mst. Ameeran and Mazhar Ali are not
mentioned in FIR, those were disclosed subsequently by complainant Ali Hassan
by making further statement, on the basis of allegation of hatching conspiracy
leading to murder of deceased Liaquat Ali. In that context, they were acquitted
of the offence by this Court on 14.03.2007 (Cr. Appeal
No.S-177/2005).
11. In
order to prove its case, the prosecution examined complainant, it was
materially stated by him that;
“deceased Liaquat Ali was my son, he was aged about 14/15 years at the
time of incident. There was exchange marriage with me and one Qaisar, the
daughter of Qaisar was proposed for my son Liaquat Ali and I gave my daughter
to the son of Qaisar. On 08.9.2003 at about 1030 a.m there was gathering of
marriage ceremony of my son I and my other relatives were available there
meanwhile accused Jinsar came in the marriage ceremony for giving
congratulations to my son Liaquat as soon as he meet with my son and took him
in his hand and suddenly took out pistol from fold of his Shalwar and fired at
left side of chest of my son. My son fell-down, the accused threatened us that
if anybody will come near to him he will also commit his murder. My son on the
spot has expired. I leaving my relatives at the dead body of my son rushed to
the police station and lodged the FIR.”
12. The
complainant has been supported by PW Shoukat Ali, on all material points, they
could not be disbelieved only for the reason that they are related inter se,
being father and son. It is true that no independent witness to the incident has
been examined by the prosecution but for this reason the complainant and PW Shoukat
Ali could not be disbelieved. They indeed are appearing to be the natural
witness to the incident. It is the quality of the evidence which is to be taken
into consideration.
13. In case of Allah
Bux Vs. Shammi and others (PLD 1980 SC-225), it has been held by Honourable
Apex Court that;
“Conviction,
even in murder cases, held, can be based on testimony of a single witness if
Court satisfied as to witness being reliable-Emphasis, held further, laid on
quality of evidence and not on its quantity”.
14. By
making a suggestion to the complainant and his witness that the deceased has
committed suicide an attempt was putin to create impression that the appellant
being innocent has been involved in this case falsely. No innocent person could
be involved falsely in the case like the present one. If the appellant was
innocent then he ought not to have preferred to go in absconsion for a
noticeable period spreading over four years, such absconsion reflect adversely
on his plea of innocence.
15. If
for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the appellant at the time of
incident was juvenile then question arises as to who prevented him from taking
such plea before learned trial Court. Taking such plea by the appellant before
this Court at the time of hearing of his appeal by making reference to his age
which he has disclosed before learned trial Court during the course of his
examination under section 342 Cr.P.C after closure of the side by the
prosecution, is appearing to be an attempt on his part to save him from legal consequences.
16. In
case of Rehmatullah alias Raja vs. Home Secretary Punjab and others (2004 SCMR
1861), it has been held by Honourable Apex Court that;
“----Ss. 7 & 12---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Arts.45 & 185(3)-- Juvenile offender---Commuting death sentence into life
imprisonment-- Pre-requisites---Determination of age of accused---Death
sentence awarded to accused was confirmed by High Court and Supreme Court--
Plea raised by accused was that as he was child at the time of commission of
offence, therefore, in view of Notification dated 13-12-2001, the sentence of
death be commuted to imprisonment for life ---Validity-- Notification dated
13-12-2001 was couched in a simple and plain language and being free from any ambiguity
there was no scope for its scholarly interpretation---Prior to commutation of
death sentence to imprisonment for life, Provincial Governments under the
Notification dated 13-12-2001 would ensure, that the age as recorded by the
Trial Court entitled the condemned prisoners to such commutation---No such age
was ever recorded by the Trial Court, hence the accused was not entitled to any
commutation---Question of age was never agitated before the Trial Court,
appellate Court as well as Supreme Court---Too late in the day to raise such a
plea as at the time of occurrence, date of birth of the accused was shown as
8-3-1976 which was never challenged and thus there was no occasion for the
Trial Court to get the ossification test conducted---Nothing had come on record
showing that the age as recorded by the Trial Court entitled the accused to
such commutation which was mandatory pre-requisite before any benefit was
claimed-- Judgment of High Court being free from any infirmity or illegality
and well based did not warrant interference---Leave to appeal was refused.”
17. In
case of FAISAL MEHMOOD / LAL KHAN vs THE STATE (2010 Cr. LJ 8), it has
been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that;
“Section 302. Minority would be no ground for withholding
normal sentence of death under Section 302 PPC when convicted no stage of trial
pleaded his minority or did he led or produce any evidence to indicate that he
was less than 17 years of age at the time of occurrence.”
18. It
is wrong to say that there is no motive of the incident. The appellant indeed
was having grudge against the deceased on account of his marriage with Mst.
Ameeran. If for the sake of the arguments, it is believed that there is no
motive of the incident even then it is not enough to take lenient view against
him.
19. In
case of ZULFIQAR ALI vs THE STATE (2008 SCMR
796), it
has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that;
“Inadequacy or weakness of the alleged motive or failure to
prove the motive is immaterial if accused is found guilty of causing the murder
of the deceased and he does not deserve any leniency.”
20. In
the said circumstances, learned trial Court was right to award death penalty to
the appellant which was normal penalty for an offence punishable u/s 302(b)
PPC, which is not calling for any interference by this Court.
21. The
case relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is on distinguishable
facts and circumstances. In that case accused taken plea to be Juvenile
Offender at very preliminary stage of trial by making such application. In the
instant matter no such plea is taken by the appellant at the trial.
22. Consequent
upon above discussion, the death penalty awarded to the appellant by learned
trial Court on its Reference is confirmed while the instant Criminal Jail
Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
Judge
Judge
ARBROHI