| Case ID |
dfde04e4-ef69-479e-bb48-9cb4c18dc0d4 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1963 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 19, 1967 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Dacca High Court upheld the conviction of Ayesha Khatun and Khajamuddin under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Ayeruddin, based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions. The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was overwhelmingly strong and consistent, leading to the conclusion that Ayesha Khatun had administered oleander poison to her husband through dal. The court also noted that the actions of Ayesha during the incident were suspicious and indicative of guilt, as she attempted to flee when her husband was in distress. The conviction was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. |
| Summary |
In the case of Ayesha Khatun and Khajamuddin, the Dacca High Court dealt with a serious charge of murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The case revolved around the tragic death of Ayeruddin, who was poisoned with oleander, a potent toxic plant. The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, which is often challenging to establish in court, but in this instance, it was compelling. Ayesha Khatun's actions before and after the death, including her attempt to escape and her confession to local villagers, played a crucial role in the court's decision. The court meticulously analyzed various aspects of the evidence, including the timeline of events and the relationships between the individuals involved. It highlighted the legal requirements for proving murder by poison, which necessitates establishing that the accused had access to the poison and the opportunity to administer it. The court found that Ayesha had both the means and the motive to commit the crime, as evidenced by her illicit relationship with another man, Abdul Gani. The judges emphasized the importance of ensuring justice in cases involving domestic violence and murder, reflecting a growing recognition of the need for accountability in such cases. This case serves as a significant reference point in understanding the application of circumstantial evidence in criminal law, particularly in poison-related homicides. The ruling reinforces the necessity for thorough investigations and highlights the role of legal representation in ensuring fair trials. The decision also underlines the potential for extra-judicial confessions to be considered valid evidence if proven voluntary and corroborated by other testimonies. |
| Court |
Dacca High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
BAQUER AND ABDUL HAKIM, JJ
|
| Lawyers |
K. Harunur Rashid for Appellants.,
A. T. M. Masud D. L. R. with Syed A. N. M. Nasiruddin for the State.
|
| Petitioners |
AYESHA KHATUN AND another
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE
|
| Citations |
1968 SLD 12 = 1968 PCRLJ 53
|
| Other Citations |
Alla Ditta v. The State P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 290,
Siraj v. The Crown P L D 1956 F C 123,
Moina Mia v. The State P L D 1966 Dacca 589,
Mst. Gajrani and another v. Emperor 144 I C 357,
Nawabdin v. Crown P L D 1952 Lah. 345,
State v. Minhum Gul Hassan P L D 1964 S C 813
|
| Laws Involved |
Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
Evidence Act (I of 1872),
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
301,
302,
24,
30,
342
|