Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS Respondent: STATE
1987 S C M R 281
1987 S C M R 281
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others‑‑Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 134 of 1985, decided on 14th December, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 11‑2‑1985 in Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1982) .
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302134‑‑Conviction and sentence of death‑‑Co‑accused father and uncle of petitioners acquitted by trial Court having not participated in occurrence‑‑Plea that petitioners might have killed deceased under influence of their father and uncle, repelled being merely conjectural‑‑Incident being a preconcerted murder in cold blood, Supreme Court declined to interfere with sentence imposed‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
M . B . Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by S . Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 14th December, 1986.
JUDGMENT
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal by Muhammad Iqbal and his brother Zulfiqar who together with their father and uncle were tried by the Sessions Judge at Vehari for an offence under section 302, read with section 34, of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of Hakim Ali deceased. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted their father and uncle but convicted them under section 302, read with section 34, and sentenced them to death.
The High Court dismissed their appeal and confirmed the sentences of death awarded to them.
2. According to the prosecution, on 25‑3‑1986 just before sunrise the deceased was returning from his land with his uncle Ghulam Farid (P.W.9). When he reached near the village mosque the petitioners together with their father and uncle surprised him. The petitioners were armed with hatchets. They abused the deceased and attacked him with hatchets. The deceased died at the spot. Apart from Ghulam Farid (P.W.9) the occurrence was also witnessed by Ghulam Muhammad (P.W.10) and Talib Hussain (P.W.8). After the occurrence Ghulam Farid (P.W.9) lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station Borewala at 8‑30 in the morning. The police station was ten miles away from the spot.
3. The motive for the occurrence was stated to be an incident which took place a month and a half earlier when the deceased castigated the petitioners for teasing his niece.
4. The post‑mortem examination of the deceased revealed that he had received eight injuries. Six of these had been caused by sharp‑edged weapons and were located in the regions of head, face and chest. According to the doctor, two of the injuries located on the head were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
5. At the trial, the prosecution examined three eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. They deposed that they had seen the two petitioners giving hatchet blows to the deceased. Their testimony was believed by the trial Court as well as the High Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had not been able to point out any defect in their testimony or any other factor which would destroy their credibility. Considering the location of the injuries and the weapons employed by the petitioners to inflict injuries on the deceased, the High Court and the Sessions Judge were justified in convicting them of an offence under section 302, read with section 34, of the Pakistan Penal Code.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on the prosecution's own showing the petitioner's father and uncle were also present at the time of occurrence; that being so, the possibility could not be ruled out that they had caused the death of Hakim Ali under the influence of their elders. It is difficult to accept this contention The High Court and the Court of Sessions have found that the father and uncle of the petitioners had not participated in the occurrence and have acquitted them on this ground. That being so, the plea that the petitioners might have killed the deceased under the influence of their father and uncle is merely conjectural. It was a preconcerted murder in cold blood. We find no reason to interfere with the sentences imposed upon the petitioners. The petition is dismissed.
M.I.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.