Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SARBLAND KHAN VS Respondent: STATE
1970 P Cr
1970 P Cr. L J 795
[Supreme Court]
Present: Muhammad Yaqub All and Wahiduddin Ahmad, JJ
SARBLAND KHAN‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 91 of 1969, heard on 26th January 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 18th February 1969, in Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 1968/Murder Reference No. 159 of 1968).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
-----S. 302‑Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court against order of conviction‑Witnesses having no motive to falsely implicate appellant in murder‑Accused‑appellant's pleas found by lower Courts and Supreme Court to be without sub stance‑Leave to appeal refused‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.
S. M. Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by
Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 26th January 1970.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High‑.Court confirming the sentence' of death awarded to him under section 302, P. P. C. for killing his co‑villager Mirabat, deceased at about 4 p. m. on 3rd July 1967, in the area of village iacha Bhangi Khel, 11 miles away from the Police Station Kala Bagh.
The crime was witnessed by Muhammad Alim and Mad Gul, P. Ws., and their presence was mentioned in the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the village dispenser at 5‑30 p. m. on the spot. Neither witness had any motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. The plea that they had deposed against the petitioner under the influence of Aseel Muhammad, P. W., was examined in the Courts below and found to be without any substance. Father of the petitioner had, long time ago, assaulted the paternal aunt of Aseel Muhammad, but there were others who too had attested the dying declaration. The evidence of the dispenser was almost conclusive on the point,
It was also urged that the deceased and the eye‑witnesses did not know Urdu or Punjabi and Aseel Muhammad had acted as an interpretor before the dispenser, the investigating officer and the Magistrate who recorded the statements of the eye witnesses under section 164. The record of the Sessions Court, however, did not disclose that the eye‑witnesses had deposed in Pushto. Nor was there any note that the services of an interpretor were employed to record their statements.
We have perused the record and find no indication that the eye‑witnesses did not know Punjabi. In fact, they were cross-examined on the point whether they had deposed in Pushto or Punjabi before the Magistrate who recorded their statements under section 164, Cr. P. C. In case the witnesses were incapable of deposing in a language other than Pushto there would have been no room for such cross‑examination.
It was lastly contended that since death sentence was passed by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali, as far back as 13th July 1968, it was a fit case for altering the sentence to the lesser penalty of transportation. As the sentence awarded is legal, this Court as a rule does not interfere with it, but the Government may consider the desirability of reducing the sentence on the ground of delay in the disposal of the case. The petition is otherwise dismissed.
Petition dismissed.