Case law on murder Appeal | accused acquitted.

فوجداری مقدمات میں سزا محض قیاس، شبہ یا کمزور شواہد پر قائم نہیں رہ سکتی۔

قتل کے مقدمات میں سزا برقرار رکھنے کے لیے استغاثہ پر لازم ہے کہ وہ اپنا کیس شک و شبہ سے بالاتر ثابت کرے۔ اگر شواہد میں بنیادی کمزوریاں ہوں، جائے وقوعہ مشکوک ہو، عینی شہادت قابلِ اعتماد نہ رہے یا تائیدی شواہد میسر نہ ہوں تو ملزم کو فائدۂ شک دیا جاتا ہے۔ زیرِ نظر فیصلہ سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان کا ہے جس میں قتل کے ایک مقدمے میں ملزم کو بری کر دیا گیا اور یہ واضح کیا گیا کہ محض شبہات، تضادات اور فرار (Absconsion) کو سزا کی بنیاد نہیں بنایا جا سکتا۔

مقدمے کا پس منظر

ایف آئی آر کے مطابق 9 دسمبر 2005 کو محمد اکرم کو فائرنگ کر کے قتل کیا گیا۔ استغاثہ کا مؤقف تھا کہ ملزم رفعت علی عرف فوجی نے اپنے بیٹے کے ہمراہ مقتول پر فائر کیا جس کے نتیجے میں وہ جاں بحق ہو گیا۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے ملزم کو دفعہ 302(b) PPC کے تحت سزائے موت سنائی، جسے لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے عمر قید میں تبدیل کر دیا۔ اس کے خلاف ملزم نے جیل پٹیشن اور مدعی نے سزا میں اضافے کے لیے پٹیشن دائر کی۔

استغاثہ کے شواہد اور ان میں تضادات

سپریم کورٹ نے ریکارڈ کا جائزہ لیتے ہوئے نشاندہی کی کہ جائے وقوعہ سے خون آلود مٹی یا کوئی خول (crime empty) برآمد نہیں ہوا، جبکہ بعد میں دی گئی وضاحتیں آپس میں متضاد تھیں۔ اس کمی نے جائے وقوعہ کے بارے میں سنگین شکوک پیدا کر دیے۔

فرانزک اور تائیدی شہادت کی حیثیت

ملزم سے مبینہ طور پر برآمد ہونے والی 12 بور رائفل کے بارے میں فرانزک رپورٹ کو اپیلیٹ کورٹ پہلے ہی غیر مؤثر قرار دے چکی تھی۔ سپریم کورٹ نے بھی اسے ملزم کے خلاف قابلِ اعتماد تائیدی شہادت ماننے سے انکار کیا، کیونکہ اس سے وقوعہ کے ساتھ براہِ راست ربط ثابت نہیں ہوتا تھا۔

عینی شہادت کا تنقیدی جائزہ

عینی گواہان مقتول کے قریبی رشتہ دار تھے۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ اگر واقعہ ان کی موجودگی میں پیش آیا تو یہ غیر معمولی بات ہے کہ ان میں سے کسی کو بھی کوئی زخم نہ آیا۔ مزید یہ کہ گواہوں کے بیانات میں بہتریاں (improvements) اور تضادات پائے گئے، جن کی وجہ سے ان کی شہادت اعتماد کے معیار پر پوری نہ اتری۔

سابقہ دشمنی اور جھوٹے الزام کا امکان

ریکارڈ سے ظاہر ہوا کہ فریقین کے درمیان سابقہ دشمنی موجود تھی اور اس حوالے سے پرانے مقدمات بھی درج تھے۔ عدالت کے نزدیک ایسے حالات میں جھوٹے الزام کا امکان رد نہیں کیا جا سکتا، خصوصاً جب استغاثہ کے شواہد خود کمزور ہوں۔

فرار (Absconsion) کی قانونی حیثیت

دونوں ماتحت عدالتوں نے ملزم کے طویل عرصہ تک فرار کو اس کے خلاف استعمال کیا تھا۔ سپریم کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ محض فرار بذاتِ خود جرم ثابت نہیں کرتا اور نہ ہی یہ استغاثہ کے ناقص شواہد کی کمی پوری کر سکتا ہے۔ فرار صرف ایک مشتبہ عنصر ہو سکتا ہے، قطعی ثبوت نہیں۔

شک کا فائدہ اور معیارِ ثبوت

عدالت نے دوٹوک الفاظ میں کہا کہ فوجداری قانون کا بنیادی اصول یہ ہے کہ اگر استغاثہ اپنا کیس شک و شبہ سے بالاتر ثابت نہ کر سکے تو ملزم کو فائدۂ شک دیا جائے گا، چاہے یہ شک معمولی ہی کیوں نہ ہو۔ موجودہ مقدمے میں شکوک اتنے گہرے تھے کہ سزا برقرار رکھنا انصاف کے تقاضوں کے خلاف ہوتا۔

سپریم کورٹ کا حتمی فیصلہ

سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ استغاثہ الزام ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہا، ٹرائل کورٹ اور ہائی کورٹ نے شواہد کا درست جائزہ نہیں لیا، لہٰذا ملزم کو بری کیا جاتا ہے۔ نتیجتاً جیل پٹیشن منظور، سزا منسوخ اور ملزم کی فوری رہائی کا حکم دیا گیا، جبکہ سزا میں اضافے کی درخواست مسترد کر دی گئی۔

نتیجہ

یہ فیصلہ اس اصول کو مزید مضبوط کرتا ہے کہ فوجداری مقدمات میں سزا محض قیاس، شبہ یا کمزور شواہد پر قائم نہیں رہ سکتی۔ عدالتوں پر لازم ہے کہ ہر شہادت کو کڑی جانچ کے بعد قبول کریں اور جہاں استغاثہ ناکام ہو، وہاں ملزم کو قانون کے مطابق بری کیا جائے۔

Must read judgement

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

( Appellate Jurisdiction )

Present:

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail

Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan

JAIL PETITION NO.234 OF 2017 AND

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.596-L OF 2017

(0n appeal against the judgment dated 08.03.2017 passed by

the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Appeal No.84-J/2016 and

M.R. No.389/2012)

Rafaqat Ali @ Foji

(JP.234/17)

Muhammad Anwar

(Crl.P.596-L/17)

…

Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State and others

(in both cases)

…

Respondents

For the petitioner

(JP.234/17)

Sardar Akbar Ali Dogar, ASC

(Crl.P.596-L/17)

Mian Pervaz Hussain, ASC

For the State

Mr. Irfan Zia, Addl. PG. Pb.

Date of hearing :

23.05.2024

JUDGMENT

Naeem Akhtar Afghan, J. On the charge of committing murder of

Muhammad Akram (the deceased) by firing, vide judgment dated 28 May

2012, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sheikhupura (the Trial

Court) convicted the petitioner Rafaqat Ali alias Foji (the convict) u/s 302

(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) as Tazir and awarded him sentence of

death with compensation of Rs.200,000/- (two hundred thousand only) to

be paid u/s 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) to the legal

heirs of the deceased in FIR No.393/2005 Police Station (PS) City

Safadarabad, District Sheikhupura (now District Nankana Sahib) lodged by

Muhammad Anwar (the complainant).

While maintaining the conviction of the convict u/s 302 (b) PPC, his

sentence has been reduced to imprisonment for life, the amount of

JP.234/2017 etc

compensation and punishment in default thereof has been maintained with

benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C., while the Murder Reference No.389/2012

has been answered in negative by the Division Bench of Lahore High Court

(the Appellate Court) vide judgment dated 8 March 2017 against which

the convict has filed Jail Petition No.234/2017 and the complainant has

filed Criminal Petition for leave to Appeal No.596-L/2017 for enhancement

of the sentence of the convict.

After hearing learned counsel for the convict, learned counsel for the

complainant and learned Additional Prosecutor General, we have perused

the available record. As per version of FIR it is the case of the prosecution

that on 9 December 2005 at about 5:30 pm the complainant (PW-2)

alongwith his brother Muhammad Akram (the deceased), and his two sons

Fayyaz (not produced at the trial) and Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3) were

returning to their home from their Haveli with fodder for their cattle. In the

meanwhile when they were near a turn a few paces away from Haveli, the

convict armed with 12 bore rifle alongwith his son Muhammad Nafees

(absconding accused) armed with 30 bore pistol appeared. Muhammad

Nafees made lalkara for not sparing Muhammad Akram alive upon which

the convict made a straight fire upon Muhammad Akram with his rifle due

to which Muhammad Akram received injures on his left arm, front of chest

and thumb of right hand. After getting injured, Muhammad Akram fell on

the ground while the convict and his son fled towards School with their

arms. The injured Muhammad Akram was taken to Safadarabad Hospital

by the complainant and his sons but the injured had succumbed to the

injuries. Previous enmity was mentioned as motive of the occurrence. The

complainant further stated that accused Abdul Majeed and Muhammad

Saleem were the abettors.

According to statement of Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3), blood stained

earth from underneath the cot of the deceased in Rural Health Centre

Safdarabad was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer.

Admittedly no blood stained earth was collected from the alleged place of

occurrence during investigation and in this regard no explanation has been

offered by any prosecution witness including the Investigating Officer.

The above has created serious doubt about the place of the

occurrence as narrated by the prosecution witnesses.

JP.234/2017 etc

No crime empty or pellets were recovered from the place of

occurrence. In this regard PW-2 has furnished contradictory explanation in

his cross-examination by stating that one crime empty was collected from

the spot and that the empty cartridge was taken away by the convict in his

gun.

The report of the firearm expert (Ex:PZ) confirming that 12 bore rifle

(allegedly recovered on the disclosure and pointation of the convict on 18

August 2009 from his house) is in working condition, has already been held

inconsequential by the Appellate Court and as such, same cannot be

considered as incriminating/corroborative piece of evidence against the

convict.

PW-2 is real brother of the deceased and PW-3 is nephew of the

deceased. The motive of the occurrence has been alleged by PW-2 as

previous enmity and in this regard two FIRs have been brought on record

which were got registered by the real brother and paternal uncle of the

convict against the deceased. PW-2 and PW-3 claim to accompany the

deceased at the time of occurrence but surprisingly they did not receive any

firearm injury. It is not believable that by killing a person in presence of his

close relatives accused would not attempt to cause any injury to the

prosecution witnesses leaving for them evidence to be hanged. PW-2 and

PW-3 have also made dishonest improvements in their statements at the

trial. The ocular testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 is lacking corroboration in

material aspects.

In view of all the above, false implication of the convict by PW-2 and

PW-3 due to previous enmity cannot be ruled out of consideration.

While awarding conviction and sentence to the convicts, both the

Courts below have also considered the absconsion of about three years and

eight months of the convict. In this regard both the Courts below have

failed to appreciate that mere absconsion of an accused cannot be made a

basis of conviction and that absconsion of an accused, being a relevant

fact, can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence which cannot be read

in isolation but it has to be read alongwith the substantive piece of

JP.234/2017 etc

evidence. Reference in this regard is made to the case of ‘Rohtas Khan v.

the State’1.

Both the Courts below have also failed to appreciate that mere

absconsion is not conclusive proof of guilt of an accused. It is only a

suspicious circumstance which cannot take place of proof. The value of

absconsion, therefore, depends on the fact of each case. Reference in this

regard is made to the case of ‘Haji Paio Khan v. Sher Biaz’2.

According to the settled principles of law abscondence can never

remedy the defects in the prosecution case as it is not necessarily indicative

of guilt. Moreover, abscondence is never sufficient by itself to prove the

guilt. Reference in this regard is made to the case of ‘Muhammad Khan v.

the State’3.

In the case of ‘Shafqat Abbas v. the State’4 it has been held that in

absence of any other incriminating piece of evidence mere absconsion does

not entail penal consequences against accused or to expose him to the

criminal liability.

10.

In view of all the above infirmities in the case of the prosecution it is

concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the

convict beyond reasonable doubt. It is further concluded that the conviction

and sentence awarded to the convict by the Trial Court and maintained by

the Appellate Court, with reduction of death sentence to imprisonment for

life, is result of mis-appreciation of the evidence available on record.

11.

For the above reasons drawn today, vide our short order dated 23

May 2024 (reproduced herein below), Jail Petition No.234/2017 was

converted into appeal and while allowing the same, the convict has been

acquitted of the charge while Criminal Petition No.596-L/2017 for

enhancement of the sentence of the convict has been dismissed.

“Jail Petition No.234/2017

For the reason to be recorded later, the petition is converted

into an appeal and is allowed. The judgments dated 28.05.2012

and 08.03.2017 of the Trial Court and of the High Court

2010 SCMR 566

2009 SCMR 803

1999 SCMR 1220

2007 SCMR 162

JP.234/2017 etc

respectively are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge.

He be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Crl. Petition No.596-L/2017

In view of the acquittal of the accused, this petition is

dismissed.”

Judge

Islamabad:

27.05.2024

(M. Saeed/Zohaib Afzal, LC

NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.