| Case ID |
2e8151e2-2497-4444-82be-18ba614b48b6 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos |
| Decision Date |
Jun 10, 1979 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
In the Supreme Court of Pakistan's decision dated June 10, 1979, the petitions filed by Baz Din and others, as well as by Shujat Khan, challenging the judgments of Special Military Court No. 7, Peshawar, were dismissed. The court affirmed the authority of the Special Military Court in conducting a thorough and fair trial, noting that the evidence presented was substantial and compelling. The petitioners' claims of lack of evidence and forced confessions were found to be unpersuasive, as the court reviewed the records and confirmed the existence of significant evidence against the accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not interfere with the military court's findings unless there was a demonstrable lack of evidence, which was not the case here. Consequently, the petitions seeking to overturn the death sentences of the petitioners were dismissed, upholding the decisions of the Special Military Court. |
| Summary |
In the landmark decision of 1979, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the appeals in Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 31 R and 82 P of 1979, delivered on June 10, 1979, by Justices G. Safdar Shah and Karam Elahee Chauhan. The petitions, filed by Baz Din and others and by Shujat Khan, challenged the verdicts of Special Military Court No. 7, Peshawar, which had convicted the petitioners of the gruesome murder of a Swiss couple, Mr. Ernst Zeller and Mrs. Mariana Zeller, under sections 302, 34, 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sections 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, with the trial conducted adhering to Military Law Regulations 6.
The case involved complex issues surrounding the admissibility and voluntariness of confessional statements, the sufficiency of evidence to support the convictions, and the jurisdiction of the Special Military Court over the matters presented. The petitioners contended that their confessional statements were coerced and not voluntarily given, and furthermore argued that the trial lacked substantial evidence, rendering the convictions arbitrary. They sought to have their death sentences commuted by filing mercy petitions to the Chief Martial Law Administrator, which were subsequently dismissed.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioners were represented by esteemed legal advocates Z. Mahfuz Khan, Yaqub Hussain Zaidi, and M. Sardar Khan, who challenged the findings of the Special Military Court on the grounds of procedural irregularities and lack of concrete evidence. However, the Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the record, including the investigative reports by D.S.P P. W. Saeed Akhtar Zaidi and the confessions of the petitioners, finding that the evidence against the accused was indeed substantial.
The Court underscored the proper conduct of the Special Military Court during the trial, emphasizing that the court had acted within its jurisdiction and had diligently sought to administer justice by recovering stolen properties and corroborating confessional statements with tangible evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the accused had led the investigation to the location where the bodies of the Swiss couple were found, and the possession of the victims' personal effects provided compelling evidence of their involvement in the murders.
Addressing the argument posed by the petitioners regarding the non-voluntariness of their confessions, the Supreme Court found no merit, as the confessions were corroborated by other pieces of evidence, including seizures of stolen goods directly linking the defendants to the crime. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the factual findings of the Special Military Court unless incontrovertible evidence of malpractice or lack of evidence was presented, which was not the case here.
The judges, G. Safdar Shah and Karam Elahee Chauhan, concluded that the convictions were well-founded based on the available evidence and that dismissing the petitions would uphold the integrity of the military judiciary system. They affirmed the death sentences imposed on the petitioners, finding no flaw in the judicial process that warranted overturning the Special Military Court's decision.
This case serves as a pivotal reference in understanding the interplay between military courts and civilian appellate courts in Pakistan’s legal framework. It highlights the rigorous standards of evidence required for convictions, the importance of procedural correctness in trials, and the limited scope of appellate review over military court decisions. The Supreme Court’s affirmation of the Special Military Court's verdict reinforces the judiciary's stance on ensuring that justice is served through well-substantiated legal processes, thereby maintaining public confidence in the legal system’s ability to handle serious criminal offenses effectively.
The decision underscores the Supreme Court's role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that military courts operate within their defined legal boundaries. By validating the Special Military Court's procedures and conclusions, the Supreme Court has set a precedent that reinforces the necessity for clear and compelling evidence in criminal convictions. This case also emphasizes the importance of voluntary confessions and the scrutiny required in evaluating their authenticity during legal proceedings.
Moreover, the dismissal of the petitions by the Supreme Court highlights the judiciary's commitment to maintaining judicial integrity and preventing possible overreach by appellate courts into the domain of military tribunals. This balance ensures that while military courts have the authority to adjudicate certain cases, their decisions are subject to judicial review to prevent miscarriages of justice. The thorough analysis and reaffirmation of the Special Military Court’s decision demonstrate the Supreme Court’s dedication to upholding justice and ensuring that legal processes are both fair and effective.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Pakistan's decision in the 1979 Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 31 R and 82 P serves as a crucial example of judicial oversight and the reinforcement of legal standards within military and civilian judicial systems. It reaffirms the necessity for robust evidence in criminal cases, the protection of defendants' rights through voluntary confessions, and the essential role of appellate courts in maintaining the balance of power and ensuring justice is served. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Sher Muhammad,
Supreme Court of Pakistan,
Peshawar High Court,
Criminal Procedure Code,
Pakistan Penal Code,
Special Military Court No. 7,
Military Law Regulations,
P. W. Saeed Akhtar Zaidi,
P. W. Dilawar Khan,
Attai Khan,
Shujjat Khan,
Yaqub Hussain Zaidi,
M. Sardar Khan,
G. SAFDAR SHAH,
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN
|
| Judges |
G. SAFDAR SHAH,
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Z. Mahfuz Khan,
Yaqub Hussain Zaidi,
M. Sardar Khan
|
| Petitioners |
ANOTHERS,
BAZ DIN,
SHUJAAT KHAN
|
| Respondents |
PRESIDENT, SPECIAL MILITARY COURT No. 7 AND others,
PRESIDENT, SPECIAL MILITARY COURT No. 7, PESHAWAR AND 6 OTHERS
|
| Citations |
1979 SLD 650,
1979 SCMR 541
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Criminal Procedure Code,
Pakistan Penal Code,
Military Law Regulations
|
| Sections |
185(3),
156(3),
302,
34,
376,
6
|