Case Law (Press clippings---Evidentiary value---Press clippings could be considered and looked into as corroborative material in the presence of some other direct unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence, but on their own strength, press clippings were not enough to prove the existence of certain facts.)

 آڈیو وڈیو ریکارڈنگ ، الیکٹرونک و پرنٹ میڈیا رپورٹنگ اور پریس کلینک بطور شهادت پیش کیے جاسکتے ہیں۔

P L D 2015 Islamabad 85


(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 2A, 9, 10A & Preamble---Security of person---Scope---Implementation of laws and dispensation of justice---Duty of State and Judiciary---No individual to take law into his own hands---Subjects of the State of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by virtue of the framing of the Constitution had executed a social contract and they agreed to surrender their individual authority in favour of the State to be exercised through the chosen representatives of the people---After framing of the Constitution no individual person/citizen of the State was left with any authority to take the law in his own hands and to pass the judgments for himself touching the rights of the others and it was only for the State and its various pillars/organs to resolve the controversies and disputes between the individuals, the citizens of the State and to ensure that the principles of the Islamic law were implemented in every sphere of life qua at an individual, social and international level---Furthermore, the Preamble to the Constitution and the Objectives Resolution itself provided that judiciary of the State would be fully independent so as to ensure the dispensation of justice to the entire satisfaction of the people who opted to exercise the powers and authority through their chosen representatives---Security of life and liberty could not be taken away by individuals or group of individuals, but only by the State and that too in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein--- When someone committed a crime, law was there to deal with him and no one was authorized to take law into his own hands.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 302(b) & 295-C---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(a)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 121---Qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism---Death sentence, award of---Blasphemy law---Conviction and sentence of blasphemer---Duty of Court and not that of an individual---Grave and sudden provocation---Scope---Accused who was deputed as a security guard for the deceased fired at and killed the latter because of his views on blasphemy laws---Trial Court convicted the accused under S.302(b), P.P.C & S.7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentenced him to death---Contention of accused that deceased had criticized blasphemy law and declared it as black law, and as such he committed an offence under S.295-C, P.P.C, and also committed contempt of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) and became a and " i.e. one who could legitimately be killed with impunity; that utterance of the deceased regarding blasphemy law caused grave and sudden provocation to the accused in particular and public at large in general; that the State and its functionaries failed to convict the deceased for his offence under S.295-C, P.P.C, and after such failure it had become responsibility of all Muslims of the State to enforce Hadd for the crime committed by the deceased; that it was bestowed on the accused from Allah Almighty to enforce Hadd by committing murder of the deceased who was "Mubah-ud-Dum", therefore, the accused only discharged his lawful obligations cast upon him by the Islamic law and judgments of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.), thus he was entitled to be acquitted---Validity---Accused admitted that he had committed the murder of deceased but with a very specific plea that such act of commission of murder was not contrary to the dictums of Holy Quran and Sunnah---Punishment of "Shatam-e-Rasool" was capital punishment, but it could not be awarded and executed without production of evidence---No material was produced on the basis of which it could be presumed that deceased in fact committed the offence under S.295-C, P.P.C and that he was "Mubah-ud-Dum" being apostate---Accused himself passed judgment and assumed the role of assassin and executed the sentence at the spot---Accused sought protections and rights guaranteed by the Constitution for his action but deprived deceased from all such constitutional guarantees---Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) was not only a human being but also the Messenger of Allah---Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) in the post migration era was head of the State, Commander in Chief of the army, the Chief Executive of the State and also the Chief Judge, and the ultimate legislative authority of his territory and therefore, if the Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) ordered the killing of some contemnors or he ratified some individual acts of killing of the contemnors by the Muslims, he was exercising the power which accumulated in his personality with such status---After the time of Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) all the Muslims chose the first rightly guided Caliph to succeed him to the office of Head of the State to manage the affairs, therefore, no single person could claim to have inherited the unique/multiple authorities as enjoyed by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) in his own right without the assent of the people of the State---Accused, in the present case, was neither the Chief Executive, nor Head of the State and not even a Judge; he was (only) a soldier in the uniformed force, under the legal obligation to obey the orders of his superiors---Examples of killing of the contemnors on the orders/judgments of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) and the ratification of individual acts of Muslims murdering contemnors were from the time period when the Islamic State (of that time) was in the state of war with the Jews who were expelled from Madina and they were not only guilty of the individual contempt of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) but were also rebels of the State---Besides instances where the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.) forgave the contemnors were more in number than the instances where the contemnors were done to death---Act of accused in murdering the deceased, thus, could never be justified on the touchstone of the decisions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) and the settled principle of the Islamic law about the subject of blasphemy---Going into the depth of words and then declaring that such words amounted to commission of offence of blasphemy was the job of courts---Approval could not be accorded to any individual to take law in his own hands and use it as sword to eliminate those, whom he considered as contemnor or prostrate---Injunctions of Islam, laws of Pakistan and globally accepted principles of safe administration of criminal justice did not permit so---Searching for any justification for the act of the accused in the present case would defeat the purpose for which Islamic Republic of Pakistan was established and the social contract amongst its people in the shape of the Constitution, resulting in anarchy, lawlessness, and rule of might is right---Regarding the plea of accused that deceased had committed an offence under S.295-C, P.P.C., the accused never made any effort to report the commission of attributed-offence by the deceased to any law enforcing agency nor did he file any petition to obtain a direction for the registration of the criminal case against the deceased---Accused was allegedly dissatisfied with the role of State and law enforcing agencies in not convicting the deceased under S.295-C, P.P.C, but even then he continued to reap the fruits from the system of governance established through the Constitution, and kept on serving as a soldier in the police force---Accused kept on getting all the benefits from the State in the shape of the salary/protection of job and all other allied benefits in accordance with law but he opted to take the law in his own hands which was totally unjustified, uncalled for and unwarranted of any citizen of the State and especially from a member of the disciplined force---Regarding plea of accused of grave and sudden provocation, the prosecution witnesses had clearly stated that just before the incident there was no conversation/talk between the accused and the deceased---Even if it was presumed that the accused somehow went to the deceased and had the chance to be conversant with him then it is obvious from his statement that it was the accused who was searching for an excuse to do what he wanted to do---Presence of prosecution eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence being natural witnesses was not disputed---No ill will or animosity was suggested against said witnesses---Crime weapon was recovered from the accused at the place of occurrence where he was arrested---Twenty eight (28) crime empties were recovered from the place of occurrence and as per report of Forensic Science Laboratory, the empties matched with the recovered crime weapon---Medical evidence fully corroborated the prosecution case to the extent of numbers of injuries, time of injuries and time of occurrence---Murder of the deceased at the hands of the accused was pre-planned, cold-blooded and gruesome---Intent, preparation and act with mens rea were manifest from the prosecution evidence and stance of accused himself---Deceased had suffered 28 firearms wounds on his body---Principles of mitigating circumstances were not applicable to the facts of the present case, therefore, death sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the accused warranted no interference---Death sentence awarded by Trial Court was confirmed in circumstances--- Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

The Holy Quran, Surah Nisa: Verse 135; Surah Al-Najm": Verses 1 to 4; Surah Al-Inshirah : Verses 1 to 8; Surah Al-Ahzab : Verse 56 to 58; Surah Al-Hujrat: Verse 1 to 3; Surah-e-Anfal: verses 12 and 13; Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book No.2, Hadith No.13; Muhammad Ismail Qureshi v. Pakistan PLD 1991 Federal Shariat Court 10; Whitehouse v Lemon [1979] 2 WLR 281; Whitehouse v Gay News Ltd [1979] AC 617, HL; Yara v.The State 2005 SCMR 82 9; Mst. Dur Naz and another v. Yousaf and another 2005 SCMR 1906; Anwar Shamim v. The State 2010 SCMR 1791; Nasrullah Khan and 2 others v. The State 2011 SCMR 613; Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048 and Muhammad Mahboob alias Booba v. The State PLD 2002 Lah. 587 ref.

(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

----Art. 164---Press clippings---Evidentiary value---Press clippings could be considered and looked into as corroborative material in the presence of some other direct unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence, but on their own strength, press clippings were not enough to prove the existence of certain facts.

Abdul Ghani v. The State 2007 YLR 969 and Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 388 ref.

(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---

----S. 295-C---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet---Non-compoundable offence---Conviction for an offence under S.295-C, P.P.C., could not be compounded or forgiven by any complainant as the State was custodian of protecting the honour and dignity of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) and the complainant of such an offence reporting the matter to the law enforcing agency was a mere informer.

(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Production of witnesses---Prosecution was not bound to produce all witnesses---Production of material and natural witnesses was sufficient.

Muhammad Mansha v. State 2001 SCMR 199 ref.

(f) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) ---

----Ss. 6 & 7(a)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Act of terrorism, qatl-i-amd---Accused who was deputed as security guard for the deceased fired at and killed the latter because of his views on blasphemy laws---Trial Court convicted the accused under S.7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 & S.302(b), P.P.C, and sentenced him to death---Contention of accused was that Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was not attracted in the present case as there was not an iota of evidence on record to show that any panic or sense of insecurity was created in the general public, and in-fact general public was relieved on the death of the deceased in view of the notoriety of his character and his utterance about the blasphemy laws---Validity---Only one of the prosecution witnesses stated that the incident created panic---No other prosecution witness stated that the act of the accused in committing the murder of the deceased created sense of fear and insecurity in the society or resulted in intimidating and terrorizing the public---Investigation Officer of the case did not utter any word in such regard---Moreover, if any incriminating material in such regard was present , the same was not put to the accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Prosecution evidence by itself revealed that accused was motivated against the deceased due to certain reasons and he had no other intention except to murder the deceased---Accused murdered the deceased and did not injure or assault any other person standing nearby the place of occurrence---Finding of Trial Court that the accused was also guilty of commission of the offence of terrorism was not sustainable in such circumstances---Sentence awarded to accused for his conviction under S.7 (a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was set aside accordingly, while that awarded under S.302(b), P.P.C, was maintained---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Motive---Motive or lack of motive became irrelevant when the case was otherwise proved beyond shadow of doubt by the prosecution.

Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, Mian Nazir Akhtar, Malik Muhammad Rafique Khan, Ghulam Mustafa Ch., Muhammad Bilal Mughal, Ch. Khalid Mahmood, Ch. Abdul Aziz, Haroon-ur-Rashid, Riaz Hanif Rahi, Malik Jawad Khalid, Ch. Naseer Ahmed, Hafiz Ahmad Rasheed, Rao Abdul Raheem, Muhammad Tariq Dhamial, Raja Shujar ur Rehman, Haji Muhammad Aadil Naveed, Syed Habib-ul-Haq Shah, Nazeer Ahmed Ghazi, Pirzada Mamoon-ur-Rasheed, Mian Khalid Habib Elahi, Muhammad Mubashir Khalid Hijveri, Mian Muhammad Saleem Aftab, Mehmood H. Mirza, Rao Abdul Jabbar Khan, Muhammad Hanif Khan, Shehbaz Ali, Muhammad Iqbal Zaki, M. Tahir Sultan Khokhar, Ch. Muhammad Qasim, Rao Nasim Hayder Khan, Muhammad Latif Khawaja, Muhammad Amir Latif, Ch. Asghar Ali, Raja Yasir Shakeel Janjua, Masnoor Khan Abbassi, Ms. Tahira Shaheen Mughal, Ch. Hafeez Ullah Yaqoob, Hafiz Khizar Hayat and Raja Naveed Arif for Appellant.

Mian Abdul Rauf, Advocate-General and Jehangir Khan Jadoon, Standing Counsel for the State.

Nemo for the Complainant.

Dates of hearing: 3rd, 4th, 6th, 10th and 11th February, 2015.


Post a Comment

0 Comments

close