2006 SCMR 1617
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ
Jail Petition No.340 of 2005, decided on 14th June, 2006.
(Against the judgment/order, dated 14-6-2005 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Jail Criminal Appeal No.829 of 2004).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)—
—-S. 302(b)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Reappraisal of evidence —Abscondence of accused—Effect—Pleas rejected by High Court—Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death penalty but High Court maintained the conviction and altered death sentence into imprisonment for life—Validity—Accused had raised same contentions before the Supreme Court which were raised before High Court and were rejected with cogent reasons—High Court had rightly maintained conviction on the basis of confessional statement of accused which was found to have been corroborated by the motive, recovery of pellets from dead body, noticeable absconsion for five years and report of Fire Arms Expert—Supreme Court did not find it a fit case for re-appraisal of evidence in view of concurrent conclusions of two Courts below—Leave to appeal was refused.
Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Muhammad Naeem Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.—The petitioner was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to death along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default to suffer 2 years’ S.I. for the murder of Yasin Khan vide judgment, dated 15-10-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/District Qazi, Swat. Benefit of section 382-B was also extended to the petitioner-convict. His conviction was maintained by the learned High Court but the sentence was altered to life imprisonment with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The direction for compensation was maintained.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that P.W.4, Mst. Bakht Meena was not present at the place of occurrence and her statement was not believed-by the learned High Court as is evident from para.9 of the impugned judgment. That confessional statement of the petitioner was recorded without observing legal formalities. That the recovery of crime weapon at the instance of the petitioner has become doubtful because in the confession he has mentioned that the crime gun was recovered earlier by the police two years after the occurrence and the present gun sent with the crime-empty was not the crime gun and this fact was not considered by the Courts below in its true perspective. That occurrence is un-witnessed and the confessional statement only is not sufficient to convict the petitioner for commission of the offence. The petitioner was arrested on 14-9-2003 and his confessional statement was recorded allegedly on 18-9-2003 after 4 days and this fact was not considered by the Courts below in its true perspective.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment.
4. We have considered the submissions and have carefully gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the same contentions which were raised before the learned High Court which were rejected with cogent reasons as is evident from paras. 12 to 15 of the impugned judgment. The learned High Court maintained the conviction on the basis of the confessional statement of the petitioner which was found to have been corroborated by the motive, recovery of the pallets from the dead body, noticeable absconsion for five years and report of the Fire-arms Expert. In view of concurrent conclusions of the learned Courts, we do not find it a fit case for reappraisal of the evidence.
5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Leave refused.
M.H./A-55/SC Petition dismissed.