Qatl-e-amd and terrorism

2014 PCrLJ 1366 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 302/34Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7Qatl-e-amd and terrorismAppreciation of evidenceVicarious liabilityAccused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment for lifeValidity

Fatal shots were fired upon deceased by absconding co-accused but it had established on record that accused persons shared common intention with absconding co-accused in causing murder of deceased on his refusal to pay Bhatta

Criminal act of murder was proved to be done in concert pursuant to pre-arranged plan and intention of accused persons could be inferred from their acts and conduct

Record did not show that accused persons disassociated themselves during commission of offence

Accused persons had common intention to murder the deceased and in such circumstances it was immaterial as to what part was played by whom

Law of vicarious liability is that those who stand together must fall together

Accused persons were saddled with vicarious liability for sharing common intention with absconding co-accused in committing murder of deceased

Prosecution proved its charge against accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt who having shared common intention with absconding co-accused were vicariously liable for committing murder of deceased

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 SCMR 1602 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417Qatl-e-amd and terrorismReappraisal of evidenceAppeal against acquittalDouble murderBenefit of doubtRecoveryProof

Conviction and sentence awarded to both accused by Trial Court was set aside by High Court and they were acquitted of the charge

Validity

No weapon of offence had been recovered from both the accused and recovery at their instance was not worthy of reliance as complainant was resident of same house where incident had taken place but he did not mention in complaint that certain articles were taken away by accused persons

Articles alleged to be recovered from accused were easily available in market and no specific mark was found on the articles to connect recoveries with commission of crime

For awarding conviction to accused persons, prosecution needed corroboration which was lacking and both accused were rightly acquitted by High Court

Interference in appeal against acquittal was a rare phenomenon

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment of acquittal passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

2013 SCMR 1602 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22Qatl-e-amd and terrorismReappraisal of evidenceSentence, reduction inDeath sentence converted into imprisonment for lifeDouble murderIdentification paradeRaising of no-objectionMotive, absence of

Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to death on two counts while co-accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life on two counts

High Court acquitted both the co-accused but maintained conviction of sentence awarded to accused

Validity

Prosecution witnesses were independent witnesses who had no motive to falsely implicate accused in the case and they identified accused in identification parade out of 27 persons

No objection was raised at the time of identification parade of accused that he was shown to witnesses prior to identification parade

Accused was arrested on 16-2-2001, he was sent to judicial lockup on 17-2-2001 and identification parade was conducted on 22-2-2001 and both the courts below had rightly relied upon identification test parade regarding involvement of accused

Witnesses had made consistent statements regarding involvement of accused

Statements of witnesses were supported by the fact that name of accused was mentioned as suspect of heinous incident without any delay

Statements of witnesses were further corroborated with recovery of blood-stained chhuri at the instance of accused from his residential house and case against accused was proved beyond any shadow of doubt

Findings of both the courts below were supported regarding involvement of accused, therefore, he was rightly convicted under S.302(b), P.P.C. and there was no improbability or illegality in judgment to that extent

Complainant in his statement under S.154, Cr.P.C. did not mention any motive in commission of crime by accused though he had tried to explain the same during trial, such motive could not be relied upon as it was an improvement at trial stage

If motive was not alleged or was not proved, normally sentence of death was converted into imprisonment for life

Accused had already spent more than 13 years in jail

Supreme Court maintained conviction awarded to accused by two courts below but converted death sentence into imprisonment for life.

2013 SCMR 590 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)Qatl-e-amd and terrorismAppeal against acquittalReasons recorded for acquitting accused based on conjecturesHigh number of deaths, due to the occurrenceEffect

Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to death but High Court accepted appeal and acquitted him of the charge

Validity

Reasons recorded by High Court on most of the critical aspects of the case were either conjectural or insufficient

As many as forty persons lost their lives and seventy one others received injuries

Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court for reappraisal of evidence to secure interest of justice

Petition was allowed.

2013 YLR 1592 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(a)Qatl-e-amd and terrorismSole eye-witnessCapital punishmentIdentification in courtDelay in identification paradeEffectTrial Court convicted both the accused for Qatl-e-amd and sentenced them to deathValidity

Eye-witness had identified both accused in Trial Court, therefore, delay in identification parade would not be fatal to prosecution case

Ocular evidence was fully corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries and positive Ballistic Expert report and the same were sufficient to establish case of prosecution

Trial Court could award death penalty to accused on the basis of evidence of sole eye-witness

If evidence of sole eye-witness was natural, trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence, it was sufficient to record conviction in the cases of capital punishment

Law does not require plurality of witnesses as evidence has to be weighed and not counted

Prosecution succeeded to prove its case against accused and Trial Court had rightly appreciated evidence

High Court declined to interfere in death sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.