Sazai moat khatam hu sakti ? Can a death sentence be overturned? How many Appeals for death penalty? Answers of questions

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some

length and have perused the evidence available on the record with their

able assistance.

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.

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.

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

Islamabad, the

13th of February, 2023

Approved For Reporti

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.

Popular articles