| Case ID |
0b047ea8-fda0-4c9d-a77b-b835aa0daaf8 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeals Nos. 272 and 273 of 2002 in Crimi |
| Decision Date |
Dec 21, 2010 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 21, 2010 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the conviction of the appellants, Zulfiqar Hussain and Shahid, under Section 302(b) of the Penal Code and Section 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code, confirming their guilt in the murder of A.R. Sharif. However, the Court set aside the death sentences imposed by the lower courts, citing insufficient evidence of premeditation and motive. The Court highlighted that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the murder was a planned and premeditated act, as the evidence suggested it might not have been entirely deliberate. Consequently, the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment instead of the death penalty originally awarded. The Court also addressed procedural concerns raised by the defense regarding the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, ultimately reaffirming the validity of the conviction while modifying the punishment. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case cited as 2011 SLD 2026 and 2011 SCMR 379, the Supreme Court of Pakistan deliberated on the criminal appeals numbered 272 and 273 of 2002, which originated from criminal petitions numbered 649-L and 695-L of 2001. The core issue revolved around the conviction of two appellants, Zulfiqar Hussain and Shahid Javaid, who were charged with the premeditated murder of A.R. Sharif on November 23, 1998, at Aziz Carpets in Tegore Park, District Lahore. The case presented complex legal questions related to the admissibility and credibility of witness testimonies, procedural fairness, and the appropriate application of punishment under the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code.
The appellant’s defense, led by Senior Advocate Kh. Sultan Ahmed, argued that the occurrence was un-witnessed and that the primary witness, Naseer Ahmed, who was also an Ahmadi by faith, had a vested interest in falsely implicating the appellants due to religious and sectarian animosities. The defense contended that the sole prosecution witness was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and questioned the integrity of the forensic evidence presented. They sought acquittal on the grounds of malicious implication and lack of credible evidence pointing towards the appellants’ actual involvement in the crime.
On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by Additional Prosecutor-General M. Irfan Malik and Advocate Syed Ehtesham Qadir Shah, countered these claims by emphasizing the corroborative evidence, including forensic findings and the consistency of witness statements, which reinforced the appellants' culpability. They highlighted that both appellants had access to the crime scene and an opportunity to commit the murder, thereby establishing a plausible motive and means.
Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, alongside Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja, meticulously examined the testimonies and the procedural aspects of the case. The Court scrutinized the defense's argument regarding the religious bias of the witness but found it unsubstantiated, as the mere faith of a witness does not impede the validity of their testimony unless proven otherwise. Furthermore, the Court addressed the procedural argument concerning the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, clarifying that the prohibition under Section 162 remains intact despite amendments, thereby upholding the admissibility of the statements within the legal framework.
The deliberation also focused on the aspect of premeditation in the murder. The lower courts had sentenced the appellants to death, suggesting a calculated and deliberate act. However, upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the evidence did not conclusively demonstrate that the murder was premeditated. Factors such as the absence of a Chowkidar, the behavior of the appellants at the time of the crime, and the nature of the confrontation led the Court to consider mitigating circumstances that warranted a reduction in the sentence from death to life imprisonment.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Zulfiqar Hussain and Shahid Javaid but amended their sentences to life imprisonment on two counts, citing the lack of definitive proof of premeditation and suggesting that the prosecution had not fully satisfied the criteria for imposing the death penalty. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring that punishments are proportionate to the proven facts of the case, maintaining judicial prudence in the administration of justice.
The case also highlights critical legal principles such as the reliability of witness testimony, the integrity of procedural laws, and the judicial balance between upholding convictions and ensuring fair sentencing. By addressing the nuances of the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its role in safeguarding legal standards while delivering justice based on the merits of each case. This ruling serves as a precedent for future cases involving similar legal challenges, particularly those pertaining to the imbalance of witness credibility and the proportionality of sentencing in criminal cases. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Supreme Court of Pakistan,
Aziz Carpets,
Police Station Naulakha,
District Lahore,
Tegore Park
|
| Judges |
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.,
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA,
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JJ
|
| Lawyers |
Kh. Sultan Ahmed,
M. Irfan Malik,
Syed Ehtesham Qadir Shah
|
| Petitioners |
ZULFIQAR HUSSAIN and another
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE
|
| Citations |
2011 SLD 2026,
2011 SCMR 379
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
302(b),
161 & 172 (2),
161
|