Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ALLAH BAKHSH VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice ABDUL HAMEED DOGARJaved Aziz Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court,Nemo
P L D 2006 Supreme Court 441
P L D 2006 Supreme Court 441
Present: Abdul Hameed Dogar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ
ALLAH BAKHSH---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Jail Petition No.305 of 2003, decided on 8th November, 2005.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14-7-2003 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta passed in Cr.J.A.No.8 of 2003).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
- S. 302(a)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Reappraisal of evidence---Confessional statement of accused---Accused immediately after his arrest made confessional statement and also admitted commission of offence during framing of charge---Trial Court awarded death penalty under S.302(a) P.P.C. to the accused, which was maintained by High Court---Validity---Immediately after arrest accused volunteered to confess the guilt which was recorded by Judicial Magistrate in which he categorically admitted to have killed the deceased---Accused failed to point out any illegality, non-reading or misreading of evidence---Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with concurrent findings of two Courts below---Leave to appeal was refused.
Javed Aziz Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 8th November, 2005.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---Petitioner Allah Bakhsh seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 14-7-2003 passed by learned Division Bench of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta whereby Criminal Jail Appeal No.8 of 2003 filed by him was dismissed and sentence of death awarded by the trial court was maintained. Murder Reference No.1 of 2003 was also answered in affirmative.
2. Briefly, stated facts leading to the filing of instant petition are that a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. was registered vide F.I.R. No.3/2002 dated 27-1-2002 at Levies Station Ahmedwal of District Chagai on the written report of complainant Shafi Muhammad wherein it was alleged that on the same day at about 12 noon, his son Master Najeebullah went to ease himself at some distance where he was fired at by petitioner Allah Bakhsh. Master Najeebullah succumbed to the injuries while being shifted to the hospital for treatment. It was also alleged in the F.I.R. that petitioner has murdered the deceased at the instigation of his father Mazar Khan.
3. During investigation police recovered 4 empties of .303 bore from the place of occurrence and also took into possession blood stained earth. Petitioner after his arrest led to the recovery of rifle .303 and a live cartridge from inside his house. On 30-10-2002 petitioner confessed his guilt and his confessional statement was recorded by Judicial Magistrate, Nushki. On completion of investigation petitioner and his father were sent up to face trial before the court of Sessions Judge, Nushki. On 15-3-2002 Trial Court framed the charge against the petitioner who while answering the charge admitted to have killed deceased Master Najeebullah as he used to tease him.
4. To prove its guilt, the prosecution examined eight witnesses in all.
5. In their statements recorded under section 342 Cr. P.C. petitioner and acquitted accused Mazhar Khan denied the case of prosecution and pleaded innocence. They neither examined themselves on Oath as required under section 340(2) Cr. P.C. nor led any evidence in their defence.
6. On the conclusion of trial, trial Court having found petitioner guilty of the offence, convicted him under' section 302(a), P.P.C. and sentenced him to death while acquitted his father Mazar Khan.
7. We have heard Mr. Javed Aziz Sindhu, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the record and p the case in minute particulars.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that trial court as well as the Appellate Court have erred in convicting sentencing the petitioner. According to him, there was dispute in between the parties which was sufficient mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of petitioner.
9. We are not persuaded with the contentions of learnt the petitioner mainly for the reason that prosecution in order to establish its case has relied upon the ocular testimony of P.W.6 Khalilullah confessional statement of petitioner, his admission in the trial at the time of framing of charge, medical evidence and motive.
10. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to reproduce the admission of petitioner made at the time of framing of chart
To substantiate further, the particular stance of the petitioner taken in his confessional statement is also reproduced as um
11. It is pertinent to note that immediately after arrest petitioner volunteered to confess the guilt which was recorded by Judicial Magistrate Nushki in which he categorically admitted to have killed Master Najeebullah. Irrespective of above, learned counsel petitioner could not point out any illegality, non-reading or misreading of evidence. We also do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two courts below.
12. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of force is c leave to appeal refused.
M.H. /A-26/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.