2019 PLP 1008 (SCMR)
SOMAID and another — Appellants Versus ALI GOHAR alias GOHAR ZAMAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1008 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Ahmad Malik,Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | SOMAID and another — Appellants Versus ALI GOHAR alias GOHAR ZAMAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1008 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1008 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmad Malik,Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1008 (SCMR) (SOMAID and another — Appellants Versus ALI GOHAR alias GOHAR ZAMAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Astaghfirullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Crl. A. 3-P/2014).
- Ghulam Mohyuddin Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Zahoor Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Crl. A. 4-P/2014).
- Barrister Qasim Wadud, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Respondent No.1 in person for the State (in Crl. A. 3-P/2014).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 02.10.2012 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No.698 of 2011)
S. 302(b)
Qatl-i-amd
Case based on dying declaration of deceased before police
Scribe of dying declaration not presented as witness
Fate of prosecution case hinged upon the dying declaration of the deceased, purportedly made by him at the police station, which was converted into the First Information Report (FIR)
According to the statement of one of the prosecution witnesses, he received the deceased in an injured condition and recorded his statement, however in the next breath, he stated that the FIR was recorded by a police witness on his dictation
Said police witness in his examination denied to have recorded the FIR, thus question as to who recorded deceased's last words, was shrouded in mystery
Person who recorded dying declaration was the most important witness to verify veracity thereof, but in the present case, such person was conspicuously missing in the array of witnesses and thus dying declaration, could not be relied upon and it would be grievously unsafe to maintain the conviction of accused
Benefit of the doubt was extended to the accused and he was acquitted of the charge of murder
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Art. 46
Dying declaration, reliance upon
Scope
Person recording dying declaration as the most important witness
Dying declaration, in legislative wisdom, was an exception to the general rule of direct evidence; it was admitted to the detriment of an accused without opportunity of cross examination upon the declarant under the belief that a person, face to face with God, would tell nothing but the whole truth
Notwithstanding such sanctimonious hypothesis, before a conviction was based upon such a declaration, prosecution must demonstrate beyond shadow of doubt that it comprised of the words of declarant alone without extraneous prompting or additions
Person who recorded dying declaration was therefore the most important witness to verify veracity thereof. Barrister Qasim Wadud, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Respondent No.1 in person for the State (in Crl. A. 3-P/2014).
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Criminal Appeal No.3-P/2014 and Criminal Appeal No.4-P/2014, by the complainant's son and convict respectively, through leave of the Court, arisen out of incident dated 22.9.2005 within the remit of Police Station Zaida, District Swabi; with a common thread, are being decided through this single judgment.
2. Prosecution case is structured on the statement of Haji Muhammad Zamin Khan, deceased; he was on way back after attending a condolence meeting when Ali Gohar, appellant fired upon him, as result whereof he sustained four entry wounds with two exits. After making statement to the police; he succumbed to the injuries; the accused absconded; arrested belatedly he was put to trial; when indicted, claimed trial, resulting into his conviction under section 302 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860; he was sentenced to death as tazir vide judgment dated 2.12.2011; the learned Peshawar High Court maintained conviction under clause (b) of the Section ibid, however altered penalty of death into imprisonment for life with a direction to pay Rs.600,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs; benefit under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was extended to the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that in the absence of any judicially recognized mitigating circumstance, there was no occasion for the learned High Court to alter penalty of death into imprisonment for life, whereas learned counsel for the convict has questioned the vires of impugned conviction on the ground that case being founded primarily on a dying declaration, the prosecution miserably failed as to who recorded deceased's last words and thus it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction.
4. Fate of prosecution case is hinged upon dying declaration, purportedly made by the declarant at the police station, converted into first information report. According to the statement of Munawar Khan, PW-6, he received the injured and recorded his statement, however in the next breath, he ascribed first information report to Khan Ghalib Khan statedly recorded on his dictation. The latter is examined as PW-13; he denies to have recorded the first information report, Exhibit PA and thus as to who recorded deceased's last words, is shrouded into mystery. Dying declaration, in legislative wisdom, is an exception to general rule of direct evidence; it is admitted to the detriment of an accused without opportunity of cross-examination upon the declarant under the belief that a person, face to face with God, would tell nothing but the whole truth. Sanctimonious hypothesis notwithstanding before conviction is based upon such a declaration, prosecution must demonstrate beyond shadow of doubt that it comprises of the words of declarant alone without extraneous prompting or additions; the person who records dying declaration is therefore a most important witness to verify veracity thereof. He is conspicuously missing in the array of witnesses and thus declaration, Exhibit PA, cannot be relied upon without potential risk of error. It would be grievously unsafe to maintain the conviction, therefore by extending benefit of the doubt to the appellant, Criminal Appeal No.4-P/2014 is allowed, impugned judgment dated 2.10.2012 is set aside; he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case; as a natural corollary Criminal Appeal 3-P/2014 is dismissed. MWA/S-20/SC Appeal dismissed.