Capital punishment

Record showed that complainant in the written complaint had mentioned that the motive behind the occurrence was previous enmity

Scope

When previous enmity was admitted by the prosecution, the same would create mitigating circumstance in the case

In the presence of mitigating circumstance, capital punishment could not be awarded

Life imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court was maintained by the High Court.

For placing reliance on confessional statement, it was to be seen that same was not only true, voluntary and believable, but should be without fear or any inducement

Capital punishment could be awarded on the basis of retracted confessional statement, if the same was voluntary.

To inflict a capital punishment of death or imprisonment for life, prosecution is under statutory obligations to furnish first degree of proof through high quality evidence, reasonably creating nexus of accused with commission of crime.

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.