Appreciation of evidence

2018 P Cr. L J 991

[Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)]

Before Naimatullah Phulpoto and Rasheed Ahmed Soomro, JJ

QADIR BUX HAJANO---Appellant

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. D-235 of 2011 and Confirmation Case No.12 of 2011, decided on 17th February, 2017.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account corroborated by medical evidence---Prosecution case was that two years prior to the present incident, accused had committed zina with the deceased---FIR was lodged by husband of deceased against the accused, he was arrested and confined to jail---On the basis of compromise, accused was released one month before the present occurrence---Accused, after release from jail, started issuing threats to the complainant and her daughter/deceased that as he had remained in jail on the basis of case lodged by the deceased, he would kill her---Accused on the day of occurrence caused hatchet blows on the neck of deceased, resultantly, the head of deceased was separated from her body and she died---Ocular account was furnished by four eye-witnesses including complainant---All the eye-witnesses had given the same version against accused with regard to place, date and time of incident---Deceased was a lady and she had no enmity with any other person---Eye-witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the accused in the heinous crime---Ocular evidence was fully corroborated by the medical evidence and was straight forward and reliable---No mitigating circumstances had been pointed out by defence for reduction of the sentence---Circumstances had established that conduct displayed by the accused detracted from any sympathy to be extended to him in the matter of his death sentence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

2005 YLR 166; PLD 2005 Kar. 18; 2010 PCr.LJ 1270; 2016 YLR 2815; 2017 SBLR 163; Ashiq Hussain v. The State 2017 SCMR 188; Noor Muhammad v. The State 2005 SCMR 1958 and Sh. Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704 ref.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Motive, proof of---Effect---All the eye-witnesses had categorically stated that prior to the incident, present accused had committed zina with the deceased; FIR was lodged and accused was sent to jail---Accused was released from jail on the basis of compromise---Accused committed murder of deceased to teach a lesson to the deceased lady---All the eye-witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing favourable to the accused came on record except some minor contradictions, which had no significance in the eyes of law---Circumstances established that alleged motive was proved, thus appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence from accused---Reliance---Scope---Accused had produced the hatchet used by him in the commission of offence---Report of Chemical Examiner with regard to recovered hatchet was positive--- Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Death sentence, award of---Scope---Death sentence in a murder case was a normal penalty---Court while awarding lesser sentence, was to give reasons.

Dadullah and another v. The State 2015 SCMR 856 and Ashiq Hussain v. The State 2017 SCMR 188 rel.

(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 544-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Award of compensation---Trial Court was bound while convicting the accused to award compensation under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of deceased, court was to record reasons for not granting the compensation---Accused/appellant was therefore, ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 300,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased; on default accused would suffer simple imprisonment for six months---Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

Talib Hussain and others v. The State 1995 SCMR 1776 rel.

Syed Tarique Ahmed Shah for Appellant.

Complainant in person.

Syed Meeral Shah Bukhari, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Sindh for the State.

Date of hearing: 8th February, 2017.