Sazai moat khatam hu sakti ? Can a death sentence be overturned? How many Appeals for death penalty? Answers of questions
Death penalty |
Death penalty |
How many Appeals for death penalty?
Ans: there are two appeals against death penalty, death penalty cases trial in Additional Session Judges and Session court always pronounce death penalty.
and you can file two appeals against the death penalty. First before high court and 2nd Appeal before Supreme Court.
Can death sentence be appealed in Pakistan?
Answer: yes as already discussed in above question against death sentence you can file two appeals first in High court and second in Supreme Court.
What is the time limit for filing appeal against death sentence?
Answer: for filing appeal against the death sentence is in High court and Supreme court is now 30 days.
Why do death row Appeals take so long?
Ans: because the rush in the courts. Appeals filed some years ago be heard by superior courts on its turns , every appeal heard on its turn. Secondly the complications of the matter take time to be decided.
Can a death sentence be overturned?
Ans :Yes High court and supreme court can overturned death sentence into the acquittal or reduce and enhanced the matter.
The following judgement of Supreme court is about death sentence.
- Short story of the case is this Complainant of FIR was wife of the accused
- She Filled a Case In Family court for recovery of dowery articles.
- Case was decreed
- She filed execution petition.
- Court send bailif with the complainant to recover dowery articles.
- During the dowery articles were loading on the truck that accused (husband of complainant) start firing on the the Complainant party, In result Father and uncle of the complainant were dead on the spot.
- Accused were nominated Fir and all the Evidence were against him
- Medical evidence was inline with other evidence
- There were not any contradict the evidence.
- Supreme Court upheld the Judgement of High court and death penalty was announced
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL
MR. JUSTICE ATHAR MINALLAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2022
(Against the judgment dated 08.11.2016 passed by
the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad bench in Cr.
Appeal No. 139-A/2012)
Imran Mehmood
…Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State and another
…Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s):
Mr. Haider Mehmood Mirza, ASC
For the State:
Raja Muhammad Rizwan Ibrahim Satti, ASC
For the Complainant:
Ms. Humaira Jabeen, in person
Date of Hearing:
13.02.2023
JUDGMENT
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Appellant Imran Mehmood
along with two co-accused was tried by the learned Sessions Judge,
Haripur pursuant to a case registered vide FIR No. 566 dated 23.12.2010
under Sections 302/324/34 PPC read with Section 13 of the Arms
Ordinance at Police Station Saddar, Haripur for committing murder of
Ghulam Murtaza and Ghulam Kibriya, father and uncle of the complainant
and for attempting to take life of complainant and her mother. The
learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 22.10.2012 while acquitting
the two co-accused convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC and
sentenced him to death. He was also directed to pay compensation
amounting to Rs.200,000/- each to the legal heirs the deceased. In appeal
the learned High Court maintained the conviction and sentence of death
awarded to the appellant by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved by
the impugned judgment, the appellant filed Criminal Petition No.
Criminal Appeal No. 82/2022
-: 2 :-
1235/2016 before this Court wherein leave was granted by this Court vide
order dated 08.02.2022 and the present appeal has arisen thereafter.
2.
The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment
reads as under:-
“2.
To sum things up stated facts leading to the pressing appeal are
that the complainant (Mst. Umaira Jabeen) while reporting the crime in the
Casualty Ward of DHQ Hospital Haripur alleged that she was married to the
accused-appellant some three (03) years back and after spending one year,
due to strained relations, her husband gave her oral divorce and shunted
her out from his house, thus, she was residing at her parents' house,
situated at Hassan Abdal. However, on the fateful day at 17:30 hours,
consequent upon obtaining a decree from the Family Court regarding
dowry articles, she alongwith her mother (Mst. Naseem Bibi) and both the
deceased namely, Ghulam Murtaza and Ghulam Kibriya (father and uncle
respectively) including two bailiffs of the court, went to the house of the
accused-appellant for taking the dowry articles, where besides the
accused-appellant, his brother Ashiq and Mst. Asmat Sultan Gohar, his
mother were also present. During the course of loading household dowry
articles in the vehicle, Ashiq and Mst. Asmat Sultan Gohar, brother and
mother of the accused-appellant, raised Lalkara to him to kill them,
whereupon the accused-appellant started firing with his pistol upon the
complainant party, as a result her father was hit on his chest and her uncle
sustained firearm injuries on his neck and head, thus both fell on the
ground and died on the spot, whereas she and her mother escaped unhurt,
hence the FIR ibid.”
3.
After completion of the investigation, report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The prosecution in order
to prove its case produced thirteen witnesses. In his statement recorded
under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the appellant pleaded his innocence and refuted
all the allegations leveled against him. However, he did not appear as his
own witness on oath as provided under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C in disproof of
the allegations leveled against him. He also did not produce any evidence
in his defence.
4.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant
contends that there are glaring contradictions and dishonest
improvements in the statements of the eye-witnesses, which have
escaped the notice of the learned courts below. Contends that the
prosecution case is based on whims and surmises and it has to prove its
case without any shadow of doubt but it has miserably failed to do so.
Contends that the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account.
Criminal Appeal No. 82/2022
-: 3 :-
Contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove motive as
alleged, which causes serious dent in the prosecution case. Contends that
the reasons given by the learned High Court to sustain conviction of the
appellant are speculative and artificial in nature, therefore, the impugned
judgment may be set at naught. In the alternative, learned counsel
contended that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment and
the same is sufficient mitigating factor to reduce the sentence of death
into imprisonment for life.
5.
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by the
complainant in person submitted that to sustain conviction of an accused
on a capital charge, un-rebutted ocular evidence alone is sufficient.
Contends that the ocular account is supported by the medical evidence,
therefore, the appellant does not deserve any leniency by this Court.
6.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some
length and have perused the evidence available on the record with their
able assistance.
7.
It is the prosecution case that complainant Mst. Humaira
Jabeen was married with the appellant but due to strained relations, the
appellant had given him divorce a year before the occurrence. The
complainant had instituted a suit for recovery of dowry articles in the
court of competent jurisdiction wherein a decree had been issued against
the appellant. On the fateful day and time, the complainant party along
with two bailiffs of the court had arrived at the house of appellant Imran
to take the dowry articles pursuant to the decree of the court. However,
while the household articles were being loaded in the vehicle parked in
the street, the appellant took out a pistol and opened fire at the
complainant party resulting into death of father and uncle of the
complainant. The unfortunate incident took place on 23.12.2010 at 05:30
pm whereas the crime report was lodged in the Casualty Ward of DHQ
Hospital, Haripur at 06:25 pm just within an hour of the occurrence. The
distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 7
kilometers whereas the distance between Police Station and DHQ
Criminal Appeal No. 82/2022
-: 4 :-
Hospital, Haripur was 7.7 kilometers. Thus, it can be safely said that FIR
was lodged with promptitude. Promptness of FIR prima facie shows
truthfulness of the prosecution case and it excludes possibility of
deliberation and consultation. There was hardly any time with the
complainant or other witnesses to fabricate a false story. The occurrence
took place in the broad day light and the parties were known to each,
therefore, there is no chance of misidentification. The ocular account in
this case has been furnished by Mst. Humaira Jabeen, complainant (PW-
11), Munsif Khan, bailiff (PW-8) and Muhammad Sharif, bailiff (PW-9).
These prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination
by the defence but nothing favourable to the appellant or adverse to the
prosecution could be produced on record. These witnesses have given all
necessary details of occurrence qua the date, time, place, name of
accused, name of witnesses, manner of occurrence, kind of weapon used
in the occurrence, the locale of injuries and the motive of occurrence.
These PWs remained consistent on each and every material point
inasmuch as they made deposition exactly according to the circumstances
happened in this case, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the ocular
account furnished by the prosecution is reliable, straightforward and
confidence inspiring. There is no denial to this fact that the PWs Munsif
Khan and Muhammad Sharif were bailiffs of the Family Court Haripur, who
went to the house of the appellant in compliance with the decree passed
by the Family Court. No doubt they are independent witnesses. They did
not know the appellant before the occurrence. They also did not have any
enmity or ill-will against the appellant to falsely involve him in the case.
Although Mst. Humaira Jabeen was related to the deceased. However, it is
by now a well established principle of law that mere relationship of the
prosecution witnesses with the deceased cannot be a ground to discard
the testimony of such witnesses out-rightly. If the presence of the related
witnesses at the time of occurrence is natural and their evidence is
straight forward and confidence inspiring then the same can be safely
relied upon to award capital punishment. Learned counsel for the
appellant could not point out any reason as to why the complainant has
falsely involved the appellant in the present case and let off the real
Criminal Appeal No. 82/2022
-: 5 :-
culprit, who has brutally murdered her father and uncle. Substitution in
such like cases is a rare phenomenon. These witnesses have reasonably
explained the circumstances of their going to the house of the appellant
i.e. they went there to take the dowry articles pursuant to a decree issued
by the Family Court. The medical evidence available on the record
corroborates the ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and
impact of the injuries on the persons of the deceased is concerned. Even
otherwise, it is settled law that where ocular evidence is found
trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over
medical evidence and the same alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of
an accused. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Iqbal Vs. The State (1996
SCMR 908), Naeem Akhtar Vs. The State (PLD 2003 SC 396), Faisal
Mehmood Vs. The State (2010 SCMR 1025) and Muhammad Ilyas Vs. The
State (2011 SCMR 460). It is settled principle of law that the value and
status of medical evidence and recovery is always corroborative in its
nature, which alone is not sufficient to sustain conviction. Minor
discrepancies and conflicts appearing in medical evidence and the ocular
version are quite possible for variety of reasons. During occurrence
witnesses in a momentary glance make only tentative assessment of the
distance between the deceased and the assailant and the points where
accused caused injuries. It becomes highly improbable to correctly
mention the number and location of the injuries with exactitude. Minor
discrepancies, if any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do
not negate the direct evidence as witnesses are not supposed to give pen
picture of ocular account. Even otherwise, conflict of ocular account with
medical evidence being not material imprinting any dent in prosecution
version would have no adverse affect on prosecution case. Requirement of
corroborative evidence is not of much significance and same is not a rule
of law but is that of prudence. During the course of proceedings, the
learned counsel contended that there are material discrepancies and
contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses but on our specific
query he could not point out any major contradiction, which could shatter
the case of the prosecution in its entirety. It is a well settled proposition of
law that as long as the material aspects of the evidence have a ring of
Criminal Appeal No. 82/2022
-: 6 :-
truth, courts should ignore minor discrepancies in the evidence. If an
omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, the defence can
take advantage of the same. While appreciating the evidence of a witness,
the approach must be whether the evidence read as a whole appears to
have a ring of truth. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not affecting
the material considerations of the prosecution case ought not to prompt
the courts to reject evidence in its entirety. Such minor discrepancies
which do not shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be
ignored. To prove the motive part of the prosecution story, the witnesses
of the ocular account appeared in the witness box and deposed against
the appellant. The perusal of the record reflects that neither the defence
seriously disputed the motive part of the prosecution story nor the PWs
were cross-examined on this aspect of the matter. In this view of the
matter, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution has successfully
proved the motive against the appellant. The Investigating Officer had
collected four crime empties from the place of occurrence. The appellant
was arrested on the same day after couple of hours of the occurrence
along with the weapon of offence i.e. pistol .30 bore. Although, the
weapon of offence and the crime empties were sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory together on 28.01.2011 but as the appellant was arrested on
the same day, therefore, the same is of no help to the appellant. According
to the positive report of FSL, the empties were found fired from the
weapon recovered from the appellant.
8.
After three days of his arrest, on 27.12.2010, the appellant
appeared before Fazal Gul, Judicial Magistrate to confess his guilt.
Acquitted co-accused Ashiq was also produced before the Judicial
Magistrate but it was only the appellant who showed his willingness to
record his confessional statement. The said Judicial Magistrate appeared
during trial as PW-3. He in categorical terms stated that the handcuffs of
the appellant were removed; the Police, State counsel and the Naib Court
were ousted from the court; the accused was told that he is not bound to
make any statement and was given sufficient time to think over the
matter. He was also informed that he is not bound to make any
Criminal Appeal No. 82/2022
-: 7 :-
confessional statement and if he does so, it would be used against him.
The appellant also signed the confessional statement and put his thumb
impression over it. When the appellant was confronted with such
confessional statement while recording his statement under Section 342
Cr.P.C. he did not deny the same but stated that the same was extracted
by the Police by using force with connivance of complainant party and the
same was not recorded under the requirements of law. However, we are
of the view that such assertion is just an afterthought. The evidence
available on record clearly suggests that the appellant did not inform the
Judicial Magistrate about the alleged coercion at the time of making his
judicial confession. The appellant also did not place on record any
evidence to show that the Investigating Officer was inimical towards him
and forced him to confess his crime. According to Article 119 of the
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the burden of proof to any particular fact
lies on the person who wishes the court to believe its existence. There is
no denial to this fact that the prosecution has to discharge the burden of
proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, once the
prosecution becomes successful in discharging the said burden, it is
incumbent on the accused who had taken a specific defence plea to prove
the same with certainty. Even otherwise, if the confessional statement of
the appellant is excluded from consideration, there is sufficient material
available on the record in the shape of unbiased and unimpeachable
ocular account supported by medical evidence, motive and recovery to
sustain conviction of the appellant.
9.
In the alternative, learned counsel contended that the
occurrence took place at the spur of the moment, without any
premeditation on the part of the appellant, therefore, the said aspect may
be considered as a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of
death into imprisonment for life. However, we are not convinced with the
argument of the learned counsel. The perusal of evidence available on
record clearly shows that pursuant to the outcome of proceedings carried
out in the Family Court, the appellant knew that the complainant is
coming to take her dowry articles. The testimonies of all the PWs reveal
that he was duly armed with pistol and consequent events reflect his
mindset. Such evidence is sufficient to indicate premeditation of appellant,
therefore, he does not deserve any leniency in the quantum of
punishment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present
case, we are of the view that the prosecution has established each limb of
its case by producing unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence. The
learned High Court has evaluated the evidence in its true perspective and
has come to the conclusion, which is just and equitable, hence it is neither
arbitrary nor perverse. No exception can be taken to the findings arrived
at by the learned High Court.
10.
For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit
in this appeal, which is dismissed.
JUDGE
JUDGE
JUDGE
Islamabad, the
13th of February, 2023
Approved For Reporti
Popular articles
Comments
Post a Comment