Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD YAQOOB VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASIM. Zaman Bhatti,Khadim Hussain Qaiser
2007 S C M R 772
2007 S C M R 772
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Abdul Hameed Dogar and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB----Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Jail Petition No.64 of 2006, decided on.25th August, 2006.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 19-1-2005 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Criminal Appeal 480 of 2001 and Murder Reference No.481 of 2001).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Reappraisal of evidence---F.I.R. lodged with promptitude---No conflict of time of occurrence given in F.I.R. and medical evidence---Testimony of complainant was duly supported by medical evidence---Accused/ petitioner as per F.I.R. had committed murder of complainant's sister in the latter's house with 12 bore carbine fire---Trial Court convicted accused and sentenced him to death under S.302(b), P.P.C.---Criminal appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed by High Court---Validity---F.I.R. had been promptly lodged and there was no conflict between time of occurrence given in F.I.R. and medical evidence, therefore, contention of accused that occurrence was un-witnessed as having taken place in the night, was unfounded---Murder had been committed in the house of complainant, therefore, he being most natural witness of occurrence, had narrated facts in detail, without any material contradiction or discrepancy---Observation of High Court that even if evidence of other eye-witness was excluded from consideration, the testimony of complainant being not suffering from any disability and duly supported by medical evidence, was alone sufficient to sustain conviction of accused, was unexceptional---Accused was not stranger to complainant family, therefore, his identity was unmistaken and it did not appeal to mind that complainant having seen the deceased in objectionable position with some other person done her to death but spared that person---Charge against petitioner was proved beyond doubt and concurrent findings of two Courts below regarding guilt of accused being based on evidence of most natural witness was not to be interfered with by Supreme Court---Leave to appeal was refused.
M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Khadim Hussain Qaiser, Additional Advocate-General for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th August, 2006.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution has been directed against the judgment, dated 19-1-2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby criminal appeal filed by the petitioner against the conviction and sentence of death awarded to him under section 302(b), P.P.C. with direction to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, was dismissed.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that on 10-9-2000 at about 7-30 p.m. he armed with .12 bore carbine entered into the house of Muhammad Iqbal, complainant and in presence of the inmates of the house fired a shot at Mst. Yasmin sister of complainant, as a result of which she sustained an injury on back of her shoulder and succumbed to the injury at the spot.
3. The motive for the occurrence as stated was that petitioner had demanded the hand of Mst. Yasmin but her parents did not agree to the proposal, whereupon he nourishing grudge in his mind, committed murder of Mst. Yasmin.
4. The prosecution mainly relied upon the ocular account furnished by Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.6), brother of deceased and Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.7), brother-in-law of the complainant, lady doctor Afia Naz Aalam (P.W.2) who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and the reports of the Chemical Examiner, Serologist and Fire-arm Expert. The petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denying the charge, pleaded that the complainant party themselves having done Mst. Yasmin to death in their house, involved him in her murder.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the prosecution version the occurrence had taken place in the house of complainant at 7-30 p.m. but no evidence was brought on record regarding the identification of the assailant and the duration of post-mortem, from 6 to 18 hours, shown in the medical evidence, would suggest that occurrence took place after midnight and in view thereof the defence version that the complainant party having seen the deceased in objectionable position with one Gulzar Shah committed her murder in their home was more plausible. In nutshell, learned counsel argued that the circumstances leading to the occurrence would suggest sufficient force in the defence version and in view of the doubt arising regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution version, the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner was not sustainable.
6. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed this petition with the assertion that deceased was murdered in her house and the witnesses being inmate of the house, were most natural witnesses who have no enmity or motive against the petitioner to implicate him in the case.
7. The sad incident happened in the house of the complainant in Chak No.323-EB situated at the distance of 10 miles from Police Station Fateh Shah and report was lodged at midnight time with maximum promptitude. There was no conflict of the time of occurrence given in the F.I.R. and the medical evidence, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the occurrence was unwitnessed which had taken place late in the night, was unfounded. Mst. Yasmin, sister of Muhammad Iqbal was murdered in the house of complainant and he being most natural witness of the occurrence, has narrated the facts in each detail, without any material contradiction or discrepancy, therefore, the observation of the High Court that even if evidence of Muhammad Iqbal son of Jan Muhammad (P.W.7) would have been excluded from consideration, the testimony of complainant being not suffering from any disability which was duly supported by the medical evidence would alone be sufficient to sustain the conviction is unexceptional. This may be noted that the petitioner was not stranger to the family, therefore, his identity was unmistaken and it would not appeal to mind that the complainant having seen the deceased in objectionable position with one Gulzar Shah done her to death but spared said Gulzar Shah.
8. The analysis of the prosecution evidence in entirety, would show that the charge against the petitioner was proved beyond doubt and the concurrent findings of the two Courts regarding his guilt, being based on the evidence of most natural witnesses, would not call for interference of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of the evidence to make out a case for grant of leave either on merits or on the quantum of sentence.
9. In the light of the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Leave is refused.
S.M.B./M-203/SC Petition dismissed.