Conviction and Theory of Substitution

Conviction and Theory of Substitution Case Laws Criminal Appeal Criminal Law Death Penalty Confirmation Knowledge - Criminal Law Lahore High Court Litigation & Arbitration Murder Solutions - Criminal Law Theory of Subsitution Mr. Justice Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi in his judgment has decided the issue regarding conviction and theory of substitution in Criminal Appeal No. 42-J of 2011.

1. Amir Shahzad, appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302(b) PPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Attock vide judgment, dated 9th June of 2011 and was sentenced to death and to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the heirs of deceased by way of compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. or in default of payment thereof to undergo S.I. for six months. Amir Shehzad, appellant (convict) has challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through Criminal Appeal No. 42-J of 2011 which has been heard by us alongwith Murder Reference No. 49 of 2011 seeking confirmation of the sentence of death passed against him. We propose to decide both these matters together through the present consolidated judgment.

2. The prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR (Ex.PA/1), registered on the statement (Ex.PA) of complainant, Mst. Humaira Bibi (PW.9), which she made before Muhammad Azram, SI (PW.11), on 12-03-2011, at 8.20 pm, near Railway Quarters, Attock is that she was married to Umar Baloach (PW.10) about four years ago and out of the wedlock one son namely Umair (deceased) was born; that presently she was living with him in Mohallah Madina Masjid, Attock City, in a rented house; that besides her husband, her father-in-law Fida Hussain, mother-in-law Mst. Zeenat Bibi and the brother of her husband namely, Amir Shahzad (convict) also resided with them; that Amir Shahzad (convict) was unmarried. She further stated that in the evening time when she taking meal, the said Amir Shehzad, appellant/accused, took alongwith her son Muhammad Umair (deceased); that after some time, due to suspicion, she accompanied by her husband went out in search of her son Umair (deceased) and that during that process, at 7.15 pm, they reached near Railway Quarters, where she heard the cries of her son, due to which they were rushed to the said place and found that Amir Shahzad, appellant/accused was slaughtering her son with the help of a Churri while making him lay on the ground; they raised hue and cry, whereupon the present appellant/accused fled away from the spot while brandishing the Churri in his hand and that she found throat of her son had been cut from left side.

Motive behind the occurrence was that Amir Shahzad, appellant/accused used to quarrel with husband of the complainant off and on and due to the said grudge, he murdered her innocent baby.

3. After receiving the information of said unfortunate occurrence, Muhammad Azram, SI/I.O (PW.11) reached at the spot where complainant Mst. Humaira Bib (PW.9) made statement Ex.PA, before him; he recorded statement of Mst. Humaira Bibi, complainant (PW.9). After recording the FIR Muhammad Azram, (PW.11) took up the investigation of this case, went to the place of occurrence, inspected the same, prepared an injury statement as well as inquest report Ex.PG/1 regarding the dead body and sent the same to mortuary for autopsy; he collected blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan Ex.PJ thereof and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He then searched for the accused and arrested him on the same night from near Railway Station, Attock. On 14-03-2011, during interrogation, appellant/accused made disclosure and then while being in custody, led to the northwest corner of Railway Grid Station, wherefrom he got recovered Churri, P.4, lying in the “Thore” plants. The said Churri was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PE.

4. After thorough investigation report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court. At the commencement of the trial a charge under Section 302 PPC was framed by the learned trial court against the appellant/accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.

5. During the trial the prosecution produced as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case against the appellant. Mst. Humaira Bibi (PW.9), and Umar Baloach (PW.10) furnished the ocular account of the incident in question and also stated about the motive.

Post mortem examination of the death body of Muhammad Umair (deceased) was conducted by Doctor Muhammad Tanveer (PW.7). He found the following injuries on the dead body:

“1. an incised cut wound at left side of neck which was 7cm x 3cm from the left ear lobe to below the chin. Major blood vessels on left side of neck cut and muscle of the neck at left side cut”.

In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to massive haemorrhage because of major blood vessels of left side of the neck cut. The injury was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was 15 to 20 minutes and that between death and post-mortem was about one to two hours.

Muhammad Azram, SI/I.O (PW.11) deposed about the recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant and also stated about various steps taken by him during the investigation of the case. The remaining evidence produced by the prosecution was more or less of formal nature.

6. In this statement recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. Amir Shahzad, appellant/accused denied and controverted all the allegations of the fact leveled against him by the prosecution and professed his innocence. He also maintained that he had been falsely involved in this case which was in fact one of a blind murder. However, he opted not to make any statement on oath under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and also did not produce any witness in his defence.

7. Upon completion of the trial, the learned trial court found the case against the appellant to have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and, thus, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above, hence, instant appeal before this Court.

Further information regarding conviction and theory of substitution can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.