Muhammad Saleh (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)

G *t pLr-* f .L6{ @ <r-f c sZt

BY BAILIFF / P_O5T / FAX

a

IN THE H IGH COURT F 5IND CI IT RT HVD ERABA D

fir, Jmil Appefil NO, 5 '3nr'' :3,d$ Of 2014 #t'

? MOHAMMAD SALEH

SCN OF ABDUL HAHEEM @ CHABBAR TALPUR,

CONFINED IN CENTRAL PRISON & CORRECTION/\L FACILITV

HVDERABAD

APPELI-ANT

VER5U5

RESPONDENT

.J THE sT/\TE

Sessions Csse No.tg/zotE Crinre No, 93/2012, I U/5 aoz , 34 ppc tr.5 ll"{oL,

,l

ffi di . :\-l ,

'.,ffi.

sit (jl,ltt'l'lrlCn't'l! (ltr !'l I!i c(.)[JIt.l. lN !ll,;(.in lil),1.() it l,l lro Rl'l N(]

CRIIV{IN AL JAIL AP PEAL N o.s -34 0F 2014

? MTJI.IAMMAD SALL EH V/S THE :5TA TE

StrI,IIfFI H IGH CO URT, CIRCUIT C OURT

}IYD ERABAN

COTUPOSITION OF tsENCH

I I()N' III,II i\{II.,I IJS'I'I(]Ii M()I IAMMAI) I(AITIM K}IAN

AGHA

(s.B.l I );rlt; ,l' lirst lrr:lr.irrg (lrc,r'ri/ r-r:st:rvcr.l): 12- 12-2023 I )t:r;irlr:r1 rln 19 i 2-2023 (,,) ..lur.1grnr:rrt approrrc:cj ltlr rr:pr>rl ir-rg

YES

CERTI FICATE

(lt:r'li['ir:ittC tJrat t]rc .Juclgrnr:nt/or-dcr is barsccl Llporr or orr rlt-tr:itttt:s il llrinciplr: oI Iart, f r.k:c:iclr: a qucstion o[ ]nur ,,rrhic6 is ol' lilst irnprcssion/clistinguishcs ove r-rules/explai.s Jr'('\'io r r s clr:cisictr-r .

sI r ikr:-,trr r'l rir:rrt:r,r:r' is rrol ;.r1l1lrir;irr.lrc:.

No'l'ti: (i) 'l'iris slip is,rtl.t'1, Irt: t-tsr:r.l r'hr:, sorno ncl.iorr is t, tlr: lilkr:n,

(ii)lf lhtr slip is tts<:rl, th<: Itt:a<l(:r'rnr-rsr nlt.;rr;[r il lo llrc 1op r:f llrr: l'irsl pir.slr: ol' l.hc .Jn11.qrn<lnl..

(iii)(loltrL Ass'r:ii.t1<: ttrLisl. i.r.sl< lhr: Jurlgc rvriltr:n thr: .juclgrrri:rrt r:rrh t:l l-r<:r r h r:

.i u r.r grr r r: n r is il rl [)r-o\/orr frlr rcporting.

(ir') 'l'llo$r: <lit't:t:tiott's rvlrir:h ilr'c rrol l.o l;r: riscd shoulrl llr: rlt:k;l.cd.

i":(.il), li;rr. l. iiii) ,i.i.i :1000_4 200.] i ill

Jr-

ry Ol{DElt Sl-llllr"l'

IN '['I_IE IIIGI{ COIJIT]'' OF SII\I}H,

(ll I{.(l tl I'f COtl lt'l', I IYI)ltlltz\ttAD.

Cr', Jail Appeal No.S-34 of 2014

I-),rVI'l:i OItDllR WIT'tl SlchlA'flJlttl OIt JUDGE

I

ior herrrir rg o [' i]ril_ilr Eil!!.

12.t2.20'23.

N4r. Shahicl Alinred Shail<h, Acldl. Prosecutor General, Sindh.

[,t:urued corrusel lor the allpellant u,as called absent without intiuration ou thc lirsf ttlrrr'(04) clates o1'heariug. Sanre is the position today. Since il cprc'stiorr ot'lau,is involvecl, i have hearcl learuecl A.P.G, who has assistecl this L'ourl iu respect oI'this matter. Itesen,ed 1or.juclgrnent.

I

E

't' I I u.lii. l' rr lt rr rl':'

{t

s31 Gr^"1% pt-na s Lsr\E) ts-rc,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT

HYDERABAD

Criminal )ail Appeal No. S- 34 of 20L4

MUHAMMAD SALLEH

Versus

THE STATE

Appellarrt : Muhamrnacl None preser-rt without intirnation despite Salleh repeatecl atternpts.

Respondent : The State Through Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, Adcll. Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Complainant. None present.

Date of hearing 12.12.2023

I)ate of jr-rr1grlent 79.12.2023

UDGMENT

MOHAMMAD I(ARIM I(HAN AGHA, I.- This Criminal Jail Appeal is directed against the judgrnent datecl 28.09.2073, passed by the learned 2nd Arlditional Sessions Judge, Sanghar, in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2013 (re: I'he State versus Muhammacl Salleh and others), emanating frtrtn Crirne No.93 of 20.17, registerecl at Police Station Jhol, under .b section 302, 34 PPC, whereby the appellant Muhammad Salleh on account of pleading guilty to the charge has been convicted u/s 302(b) PllC as 'I'a'zt'"* ancl sentenced tcl suffer irnprisonment for life for cotntnitting the rnurder of deceased Ali Murad. He was also directed to pay Rs.5,00,A00/- (Rupc'es Five Lac) as compensation to the legal heirs of cleceasec'l as proviclecl u/s 544-A Cr.P.C; and, in case of non- lrayr]rent of said compelrstrtion, the appellani; shall further undergo S.l ior 0Z years morc. 'I'he bcnefit of Section 382-8 Cr.P.C was also

I

>y

extendecl to the appellant. I{owever, co-accuseci Shakoor has been cleclarect proclairnecl ofienrlel therefore, his case was kept ou dortnant t' file, while co-acclrscrl I'C Gul Muharnrnad IA'as facing trial at the time {r of passing of imptrgned juclgment, therefore, his case was pending' Z. The facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the FIR are as uncl e r:- "Otr 1J.11.2012 nt 1475 lrcurs, contplninnnt Jmted Almrcd lodged FIR, nlleging tlrcreht tlmt lis brotlrcr Ali ltAurnd nged nbout 35 yenrs, rttln is nmrriicl, ,rsrrt to reside tuith ltint. one nnmely Kirnr Tnlpur, ruho runs in preTiottslrl resirlirrg itt tlrcir ttillnge hnd stifted nnd tloltt lre is residing 'Jlnl toruy in Wtttirl No,7, tpitlt lionte nnd lis relntiues, contplnfunnt.hss .isitirrg tt,rnrs, At niglrl tirrrt, nt nbottl 09:00 lrurrrs, t:ortrylnittnrtt nnd Jis ltrttllrers trturtelrl Ati'Mttrntl rrnd Klutlid Lltrcsnin ruere sitti'ttg itt tlrc " Otnr1", yteilnli,lrtt, cortrplninntrl's elder brotlrcr in.fornrcd ltim tltnt he ltns 'inn,ited br1 t(irnr TrilTttrr for fenst nnd lrc nslrcd to drop linr tltere, to bar:rr rulront cottrplnitutnt rlropperl in tlle sfteet of "I{irnr"s ItoLLSe on Motorcycle trt iiltortt 10:00 lrcrrs in Jtnt lorptr,'t"lrcrenftei lrc smp tltnt lis bratltel' Ttttts

cttteretl irt tlrc lrcttse o.f "l(irnr" (rl'td llrcn contplnittnnt returnedbnck. ln artrltl ntortrittg titltt', ttl nbttttt 04:00 n.1tt, cortrytlnittnn|S.ltrotlrcr Ali Mwrnd t.nllitl ltilt ot1 plrurrc rtrtd nskecl to pick lim througlr uelilcle, ns xrcl4 4 csrtrytlrirurtrt toolr tlrc cttr of lis r,tncle lslmqtte nnd nlong tuith his brother I}rnlir{ I-ltrssnin nncl cousitt Abcttil Jnbbnr conjointly ruent to pick Ali Mttrncl nnd rulrcn tlrcy renclrccl nt nbout 0500 lnurs, neflr the ltoutses of Gt; Ilnssnn SImr nt Clrcclr, nrcnruuhile, they hnue lrcnrd the noise fronr E.nstcrn sirle, ns such, tlrcy tt.rrtrcrJ to tlrcir cru' nnd tlwy stllu ot't tlrc ligli of t.ttr tltnt lltrt,e pers()tls ,ur",', benting to AIi lthrnd nnd they hnue identified tlrt:trr /rs l)trl Mtilrlnturnrl sort o.f Altdullnh T'nllttr lmuing lmtclrct, Mulmrrtnral Salleh son o.f Cltiblmr Tnlpur r:nd Slmkoor s/o Abdul Snttnr 'l'nlptrr, botJt lmuing daggers nnd tltert cortt1tlninnnt nnd his tuitrtesses got dou,n .frotn tlrc t,ehiclc nnri nsk ns to wlry benting ltis brother, 'Mtirayrrmad It,hereof snlrelr reltlied that they haae eailier prrrrr,ried him (Ali Mrtatl) lroru uisitirtg the hottse of "I(irnr" and 'ru1n1 agairt lrc canrc last nigltt on their inaitation atrd by sayit'tg so Gttl Mtilrquurtcrrl has inflected slmrp side hatchet blow aboue eye t.otu / front sicle o! face with intentiort to conmrit his nntder, as suclri, he .felt dozurt ot,t the ground and then shakoor ancl Mthaynlacl Salleh inflected o'n ofie dagger blozu ruitlr intention to corrrrlit yis rrurder or)t front side towards left side, Tlrcy rushed tlrcre by trtnking lutkttls, tlrct:cn.ftcr, nll tltree nccused 1't711 nTlfiy nlong ruitlr It'ntclrct nirl lnggers totpnrds nortlrcrn side in streets. Tlrcrenfter, tlrcy smo tlrnt Ali l\4,,rni-lurri rcccit,ed injttnl infront side o.f ltis.fnce, one injttry on hrs sr tllper siclc o.f ltertrt nrtcl on'e ittjttry in zunist, blood runs oozing md lrc rprrs b|etrllting ont spot nrttl tlrcn srtccrutilted to tlrc hrjuries, Tlrcrenfter, r:ottr,tlnitr,ttttTnfot'nna,l to ltis cotrsin h/isnr ,Altrued, ru\rc runs irt Smglmr ntttl L-iltttLt n.l'lt,r sonta tittre rtnd tlrru lrc ii.lorrned hirtr nbout the incident. 'T'lrcrettl'11,1., cLnttltltitrtutl lrtoitrg /iis ltrollrar tuenl to nl Ttolict'stntion nnd lortge rl t, /, i{." (boltl aclttetl)

3.After r-rsual irrvestigation police submitted the challan before the Court corrcerpeci ancl after cornpleting necessary forrnalities, learned trial court fra*recl trre charge against the appellants, to which the(,

fr,,.i|

J

t

pleaded guilty to the prese.t appeila.t i\rurr,r*r*ratl saileh voluntarily clrargerliclelris|-le.rat[jrlr.l0,aSsttclr,lrewasissuedshowCause f notice at Exl-r,I 1. Hott'e'el', in reply to the show cause notice' the

apperlant Mr_rrramr,atl sa[err again preacted guilty and expressed his

fr-rll irrv0lvernent in the colltlission of offence'

learned counsel for the 4, Lealrretl trial cortrt after rreari^g trre o11 record a'd parties arrtr era,ri^irrg the eviclence available convicted ar-rd sentenced consicleri.g the guilty plea of the appellant The appellant has filed trre appclra.t as staterl carlier. irr trris iuctgment. victimized on account of tlris appear agtri.st his co*victio* as he ryas that he is claiming that his politicar participation anct as such it appears his gr-rilty plea was not made voluntarily' given to the learned

5.Ir, is.,tecl that tt*spite so malry intirr-rations to remain absent' As such, coLlnsel for. the appe[ants, he has preferrecl on27.11.2023, the appellant was askecl through superintendent Central with this case ,rison l-lyclerabacl as to whether he i.tencls to proceed through his cxisting couusel, wishes to engage a new counsel or services of a coLrnsel be providecl to him on state expenses. Flowevel, appellant has submitted

i

on trre rast clate of hearing i.e. 06,rz.z0zz, the

I

i

I-ris reply wherei' he stated that he wants to remain with his existing

colrnser, as such, the rnatter was kept for hearing f-or 12.12.2a23 and for saleem whiclr intirnatio, ,otice was also issued to Mr. Muhammad l,agrrarri, rcar.ed counser for the apperlant, but he was called abse*t appeal with the without i.timation theref .re, I have clecidecl this assistn*ce of le..rcr1 A.p.c kcepi.g i'view that the appeal is over L0

years olcl ar-rcl recluires expeclitious disposal, 6, 'l'he issue before me is the 1egal qr-restion of whether based on the particurlar. f acts a*cr circumstances of the case, the record and the

r.erevant raw the guilty prea of the appelrant shoulcl be maintained and

his appeal be r,rismisserr or whetrrer there are any defects committed by

trre trial co,rt i. accepting the guilty prea of the appella^t which would court for a de' justifv the case bei.g rernancterl to the concerned trial nl'u() [^realing.

7.Learnr.tl r\rlt1l P G sulrmittecl that under 5.265 (D) Cr.PC the cSarge is fraprcri bv the trial court, as iu this case, if there are sufficient grouncls f or proceetl irrg rt,ith the case. According to him the moist r inrportant section for the purposes of this appeal was 3.265 ( E) Cr.PC where the colrrt cor-rk1 corl,ict the appellant on a guilty plea in its discyefiprr whicfi n,as the key word in the section. Thus, tl'te court had to satisfy itself that the guilty plea was voluntarily made and had some nexus with the actual eviclence. In his view this was a capital case as it carriecl a sentence of rllouLl than 10 years aucl in such cases the trial cou rt har1 to exercise prerrticr-rlar catttiou. I{e was of the view that insr-rfficiept caLrtion hacl Lreen taken by the"trial court in this respect and as such the case sl-ror-rlcl be rernanrled for a cle novo trial. In support of his cr-rrrteltions he placecl leliance on the cases of Shafique Ahmed alias Shahjee versus The State [PLD 2006 l(arachi 377), Allah Ditta versus The State [2011 P.Cr.L.J 167], Nasir Mehmood and another versus The State [2015 SCMR 423] and, lVluhammad Ismail versus The State [2017 SCMR 7131

L I have heard learnecl APG who was assisting the court on the lcgal question mentionecl above, considered the record and the relerrant law inclurding the case law cited at the bar.

L)

M), starting point is 3.265 (E) Cr.l'C which is set out below for ease of referellcL';

265-E , Plen, (1) The chnrge slmll be rend nnd explnined to tlte nccrrserl, nnd \rc. slmll be nslred rulrctlrcr lrc ts guilty or lrns nny rle.[t'ncc lo rttnhr'.

(2)lf Ilrc rrc:r'rrsed plenr{s guilty, tlte Cout't slmll record tlrc plend, nttd ttrttrl irr its discretiotl cottlticthittt tlrcreon (bold added).

10.'l'he languragc useci in 5.265 ( I1) CI,PC makes it clear that an accurserl crrn cithcr picacl guilty or not guLilty to the charge. I-Ience as a matter of law any accusecl can plead guilty for an offence for which he is chargecl if he so clesires. The important part of the above section, as rightty pointed out by learned APG, is that the trial court can accept tlre guilty plea in its tliscrctiorr which in rny view means that the court cannot simply accept the guilty plea at face value but has to make some ipctgiries to see whether the guilty plea has been voluntarily,

Jr

made and r,r,,hcthel rlnv nexlrs can be found with the evictence on recorcl to inclicate the genr-rineness/correctness of the guilty plea. If so f found the court carr Frroceed to convict and sentence the accused on his gr"rilty plea.

11.In this case the aprpeIlant plead guilty to the charge ou 18.07.2013 which is set out br'[ott' for ease of reference.

Crinre No.93/ 2012 U/Ss.30?,34 PPC Police Station Jhol

CHARGE

l, Glntlnrn Mustnfn Legltnt'i, lud Adrlitiotrnl Sessions ludge, Snnghar, do lrcreby clmrge yoLt,

1.Muhanrruad Salleh son of Chibhar Talpur,

2.P.C:, Gttl Mulrutmrnd son of Abdullnh I-nlpw As ttttder:- Tlrnl, you on or nltout 13.11.2012 nt 0500 lnurs, in enrly rnorning .1 "serperng( thne ttcnr tltc gttttfir" runrd No,7, Jhol torun, T-nhilcn Sinjltoro, yoLt botlt rtcutsetl nlong with yotLr nccotrrylice (Slurkoor declnred proclninrcd offender) in- llrrtlrcrnrtct, o.f tlottr (ottuttotl inlattliott futlry nrttrcd ruith lmtcltet and dagger conrrrritted Qatl-e-Amd of Ali Murad aged qbott 35 years,, the brother of corrrytlnhmnt laaed Aluned Mangrio, by nteans of inflecting sharp ctttting Luenpott uiz. dagger and hatchet, hence yolt lmue tlrcreby conunitted offences pttnislrnble under sectiorts 302, 34 PPC, tuitlin the cogrriznnce of this Court, And I lrcreby direct yott tlmt you be tried by tlis Court on tlrc nborte snid clmrge (]iuerr rtnrl(r ttry ltnnd nntl senl of llrc Cortrl, tlis'l$ttr pt,, of luly, 2013 (bold ndde.rl) sd/-- (Gl u ilnnt Mus tnfn Le ghnri) |ttd 1\ lJsJitionnl Sessions Judge, Sanghar

'].,2. Irrom the record the trial court'did not immediately accept the guilty plea of the appellant at face value but instead immediately after the appellant plead guilty gave a show cause notice to the appellant to in effect explain why he was pleading guilty which is set out Lrelow for case of referer-rcc:

'['o, Accused Mtimrtunad Salleh son of Chibhar Talpur, R/o Villtrge Wnrd No.1, Jltol Tou,n Tnlukn Snnjlnro

Sttbject; S lrcw Cturce l'lotice tutder Sectiort 265-E(2) CnP.C Wlrcrens, in open Court todny rtiz, L8,07,2013 ruldle frnning clmrge irr 5.C l'/o.13/2013. Tlrc Stnte t,. ltittlmnunnd Snllelt I otlrcrs, Crirue

,'l

sfu

f

Nrr.9J of'2012, riirrJ'r'i'-\i'( lr()i r,s 302, 34 PPC of Police Stttiott llrcl, Uou haae aohttttnrilry plt'ntlrd guilty of tlrc- ollence regarding conrntission ,f *' nrurder oJ' Ali i\lttrttd, brother of complainant laaed Ahmed Mangrio lVo uillfige Grrl Hrlss rut SeftLtal Talulca Sinjhoro. { )'urr ttre, lrcreby directed to show-cfruse and to explain Vour positttrt irr it,t'itirtg ott 23.07,2013 at 08:30 (t,t'n. clarifuing therein that Vou luti,e trct lteen pressltrized by anyone to plead guilty of the offence or erett irtdttced by anVofie to malce adndssiotr regarding corrrrrrissiort of snid o.lfence.

Yort nre lurtlw ilformed that youff aboae adruission tttill be used ngnirrct tlou mtd ryou Luould be conuicted on the plea of tlotu' gtil t,

Giuctr ttndt,r ttrry lrutd rrtrd senl of tlrc Cotrrt on tltis 1fl,tt, dny of Jttlry, 2013, (bolct arklecl)

(Gtuilnt,,,i!!* Le shnri) lta ,\fl6litionnl Sessions Judge, Snnglnr

13.On 23.07.3013 five days after the appellant received the show causL' uotice he made his reply to the show cause notice which is set

I

out lrellort, for" ease of reference, Crirne No.93/ 2072 U/Ss.302,34 PPC Police Station Jhol

Sr-rbjr.ct: Replv to Shqyq Catrse notice UI/S: 265-E( 2) Cr.P,C.

lteference: Your I lonour's Office N r>,181 / 2013 clatecl 78.07,2073 Honornble Sir,

ln obedience of yotn honour's aboue cited shoru cfruse notice, tuitlt pro.fowtrl respccl, it is sttbrttitted l:hat uictiwt / deceased Ali Nlttrnri ht tlrc ctboae cilse lmd gol illicit teyms with nxy coltsin the wife of l{irat', lor ruhich I udntorislrcd tlrc deceased, but he trcuer refrained.

T'lml, ltrior to tlrc incirlent nbot.tt 4/5 dnys, I ngnin ndnnnislrccl tlrc tleccnsctl, tnrl ittstanrl ts.f re.frnining.frortr ltis bsd nctirtitie.s lrc chnllengefl nrc Ilrnl tfi)tt fir( trct Nekttmrrl or so brnue to restrnin utet which jurther

L

r,rrttrotled tttet therefore I got beltind the deceased to coulrlit his r,tssr.tssirrtttion for thort I got a clmtrcc on 13,11,2012 at about 2330 Itorrs, utlrc-n the aboue deceased entered ilr the house of flly cousitt irt absetrce oJ' lrcr husband l(irar, I also entered behind him and attaclced ttpott him ruith n dagger and done lim to death at the spot, then toolr lis dend hody to llrou, in n nenrby pond, bt.tt tlre dogs nunilnlrl, or)er there did trot nllou, ttte lo go fonurrrrl. I-ern,ing / tlroruing tlw dend borly tlwre, I llrcrtn.l'tar ilppilred trl P.S llrcl t,olrrntnrily nnrl nrrendererl ruyself, The plnce o.f-nrrest slrort,rr bry polir'r: r,i:i, Dnrgnlt Jrttnntl lnti is incorrect.

'[lmt, after dll'rest I was produced betore Ciuit Fanr.ily / ludge / l,M Sanglrur for obtairlirrg rentmtd, where I also pleaded guilty

iil

aohnftttrily but ntu suclt statement xuas not got recorded by tlte coflcerned ytolice.

r Tltnt, I rrtryselJ' lmue conunitted the aboae nnrtler, co-accused { haue rrtnlt.f'itle,lq be ett irruolaed to extort nrcner1 fronr tlrcm.

Tlrtt, rrt'itlter I ltaue beert pressut'ized to plead guilty of the offetn:e or etten ittdtrced lo malie ctdutissiotr regardirtg cortlnission of aboae ouerrce, brtt orr tlrc contrfiry I haae giaen the aboae statenrctft uohtntarilq.

'l'ltnl, tlu: nboue is ythnritted in tlrc intcrest o.f justice. Snttglnr Dnted: 23,07.2013 sd/_ Accused sd/-_ Adaocate for acursed

.14, '['his rcply sets ourt thc reasons as to why the appellant was pleading guilty wlrich ties in with the FIR and charge ancl other evidence on record. I'he reply to show cause notice was signed both { by the appellant and his lawyer and thus it was macle under legal advice after 5 days of receipt of the show, cause notice which gave lrirn sufficient reflection time. It also clearly states that neither I haae beetr ltressttrizerl to plead gtitty of the offence or eaen fuwltrced to malce adtrrissiolt regfrt'ding cottu'rrission o.f aboae offence, but ort the contrary I lmue giaerr the aboae stateruent aohnftarily. Additionally in the show caLrse notice tl're appellant was cautioned that if he plead guilty it wotrld lead to his conviction and as such the appellant was well aware of the consequences of his reply to the show cause notice.

15.Tl-ruts I fincl that the trial court dict exercise its discretion in clecicling whether or not to accept the guilty plea of the appellant and after satisfying itself that the plea was genuine and was made voluntarily aucl uo t under elny tluress/ influence the trial court accepted the gr-rilty plea as reploduced as para's 4, 5 and 6 of the lmpugnecl judgmeut riatecl 28,09.20'13 which are set out below for ease of referelrce:

"L)ot'trrtrcrrls ils retlrtired tttrrler secliort 265-C Cr.P,C, ruere supplied to rrr:cuscd Mtilttrtrttttnd Snllelr mtd PC, Gtrl Nlulmnn'nnd on receipt nt E x,6. A.itertunrds, fornml chnrge ngtirtst botlt ncaned runs frnnrcd nt Ex.B, to rplticlt ttccuserl PC, GrtI Mulruttntnd Ttlenrled not guilty nnd clnirued trinl, uide lis plu nt E,x.9, ruhile acatsed Muhantmad Salleh, pleaded gtilty aoluntarily, aide his plea recorded at Ex,10, Thereafter, accused Mulmnmtad Salleh tuas seraed witlt shocu Cause Notice, copy tlrcreol

t

lcept on record nf E.r.77. ln reply of show cfruse notice, stfumitted by acctrced hLttlrnnilnfid Salleh tlwotrylt his cotursel, (Ex.1.2), acarced again plertded gtiltry arrl expresserl his futly inaolaement in the conrtrlissiott oJ'oJ'l'ertce by saqing tlmt "dccefised Ali Mttnd in tlrc nboue cnst' ltntl gnt illicit terrtrs roilh lis cottsin, tlrc uti.fe of Kirnr, for wlich Jrc t- ndnnnislrcd tlrc decensed, hrt lrc ner)er refrnined prior to tlrc incident nbout 4/5 dnys lrc ngt[tt milrruislted tlrc decensed, but instend of refrnirting from lis hed nclit,ilies lrc t'lmllertged ltiru hy snying tlmt lte is not so nek tnard or brnre lo restrnitr lrint, trlriclr .furtlrcr nnnoyerl ltin4 tlrcrefore, lrc got belind tlrc dccenset{ to t'r)tttutit lris ussnssittntion.for tlmt lrc got n chnnce on 73.11,2012 irl nbortl 2.330 lntttt's, u,lrctt tlrc nbttt,c rlet-ertsed entered irt tlrc lnuse of ltis r'ttttsur itt r/1r.sr',/r-'i' ol'lrcr ltttsbnrttl l{rnr, ltc nlso cnlercd beltind lim nnd nltrrclrrtl ttlt1l1r lritrr rt,itlr n dngget'ntrd done ltinr to dentlt nt llrc spot.

TIrc u.tefipon so used ilr tlrc contlnissiort of offence by the accused h4ulrnrrrntnd Snlleh Irus been receiaerl by the police during tlrc course of irruestigatiorr. The Medicnl Officer I)r, Lashlcar Ali in ll,l"s autopstl report lras clearlrl shorutt tlrc irrjtrries ststained I,!/ fiteflfls of shar1t crt t t ir rg irrs trm r rcr r t,

Itr reply of slrcru cause notice acutsed Muhanrmad Salleh has firther arlntitted tlmt lrc has neitlrcr been pressuyized to malce adntission nor ittduced by arryone, lt fippeltrs thnt the adnrissiorr o! gilt of acarced Mttlmntnrnd Salleh is withortt nrtrl fctrce, fear, inducenrcnt and pressure. T-lte silrrourtdhry circtttttstarrces of tlrc cilse reflects that rrccttscrl Nlttlrtunltttttl Snllclt ltns conunittt'd the nrut'der of dcceased on Ltccouttt o.f "Gairttt" and particttlarly in these sifimtiotts fr person losirrg his norntrll t'eru7toral. At present the mental condition rf acctrscd is nornffrl and lrc properly urrderstands tlrc questions pttt to Irhrr l{eeping ilt aieut tlrc circtunstances of case and post tnortenr report o! dcccnsed Ali Mtrrad cottple tuith plea ol grilt, it is proued tltat otr 1,3.11,2012 accused Mriltnnutttrd ljalleh lms canunitted brutal ttrttrdcr oJ'tlli h4rrt'nd anll in tnry aieru cor;uiction turley sectiott 302(b) Paliistan Petutl Code, lor Life lruprisortntent will rueet tlrc ends of jrtstice. Cortseqrterttly, nccused Mtilmnrntnd Snllelt is cottuicted and serttatrccd to ufJbr Intprisortntent frtr Lif, rmd he is nlso directed to pny cotupensntiort of lls.50A,000/- fi*tytees Fiue Lhmdred -I'lrcusrutdsl pnynble to llrc ltgnl ln'irs o.[ tlat'crrsetl in t-nst,o.fltis fnilrrra lherttlo, lrc sltnll ut.l'[er.ftrrtlrcr rigorotrs i ltpt'isttuutL'ttl litr huo tl(ilr5 ntot'(, All llrr settl(.tlt'es slmll rLtu rottL'ttrrcttllry, lltt'ttrd slrctps tlrnt nt't'trced Mtitmtuttnrt Snlleh is itt cttstody sirtrt' 22.'1 12012. ltc is giuetr betrcfit of'Sec'tiotr 382-13 Cr,P,C, LIis period of deterttion rpill lte nrl.ytsterl townrds stttrtences nrunrded to \iru,"

76.Notably thc irnpr-rgnec{ judgmerrt was handed down over two tnotrths atfLet'tlrc appcllant gavc iris rc,ply to show cause notice yet the - appellant uever retractecl frorn his gr-rilty plea cluring this periocl and even after his conviction on his plea of gullty of which he was fully aware he did not filed his appeal that his plea was not voluntarily for a further 6 tnonths r,rntil after his cr-rnvir:tion, f,lo explanation had been given for such delay.

17.I have considerer{ the case lan, cited by the learned APG and finrl that it is c{istirrgr-r ishal-rlc frorn the particular facts and

L

I

sy 9

circutnstauces anrl the recorrl of the instant case where the court fully exercisecl its rliscrr.:tion as alh-r11ecl to above in pr-rtting the guilty plea in jr-rxta positicln tt'itll [[tt'lrrcts o1:the cersc ancl other evielence ot1 record ancl took steps to eltslu'e that the guilty plea was macle voluntarily withc,r.tt any dut'ess, inflr"rence or coercion. Arimittedly this is a murder case vvhich arttrarctr'd the death penalty fo r which extra caution is leqr-rireci but it is to be noted that the appellant had legal advice before making the reply to show canse notice and both he and his lawyer have signed the reply whereby he admitted his guilt and the reasolts why he murdered the deceased and thus the appellant would have been ftrlly Aware of the consequerlces of his reply as he was even cautiolred that if he plead guilty he would be convicted of the charge.

18.I harvr: also borne in rnind the separation of powers between the lcgislatute, the executive and the jucliciarv. Namely, it is for the legislature to rnake law and the courts only fo interpret the law if it is amlriguous or in violation of the Constitution. In this case the legislatnre throlrgh section 265 (E) Cr.PC has in unambiguous terms girrt'tr an accLtscc{ thc right to plcar{ gurilty to'a charge if he so chooses anci Lry acliling the worcl accepting the plea at the cou rts d,iscretion has eusuretl tlrat the guilty plea is genuine and in effect safe guarcls against peoprle rnaking guilty pleas to, for example, protect others or if they \4/cl'c ctlttlcecl into cloing so, lf the court was tcl interfere in every case where a guilty plea was macte by an accused, ancl the court took steps to ensure that it was rnade voluntarily ancl was genuine as in this case ancl thereby correctly exercised its cliscretion the court woulcl virtually lre rrrelking Ser-Lion 3.265 ( tr) Cr.l)C rr.clundant wftich canlot be done especially as the section it is not in violation of the Constitution.

. In trrost collllrlon la w j r"rrisclic tions the accusecl is askecl in a crimiual case r.t,hcther he pleads gurilty or not gr-rilty to the charge apcl if a guilty plea is enterecl the court seldom consiclers the genuineness of the plea Lrut rather ensures that the accused is rnentally well and had a coLtllsel to aclvise hirn and then proceeds to sentencing basecl on the various sentencing guidelines/rnitigating factors one of which tnight bc' the plea of guiity which savec{ the valtrable tirne of the Court.

I

I

,f 5 v

2A. It might be in some cases based on their own particular facts and circumstances flnt1 recorrl that the court clid not exercise its discretion properly lry takirrg steprs to ensure that the guilty plea was genuine and voluntary anrl rt'hich might leacl to the case being remandecl. I{owever no such defects \\'ere ioi-rnd in this case as discussed above and no inclit--ation of anv nrental illrress of the appellant at the time of making the guilty plea or repi), tn show cause notice has come on recorcl. There has Lreen no rriolation of Article 10 (A) as the guilty plea is provided under the law ancl all necessary steps were taken in this case to ensure that it was voluntaly and genuine ancl the rights of the accused were safeguardecl,

2'1, Furthennore the court must be cautious in remanding sr"rch cases where accused has pleacl gurilty to the charge unless there are cogent reasorls. '['his is Lrecause an accuseci ulay genuinely pleacl guilty and perharps receive a lesser sentence and later discover that his co-accused having similar roles who plead not guilty were acquitted after a full dressed trial ancl as such might be encouraged to claim that l'ris guilty plea was uot voluntary and scck a rernand and then rely on the case of his acquittecl co-accllsed to ensure his own acquittal which in my view would not meet the ends of justice and cause some chaos within the judicial systern arud effect the efficient and effective administration of the crinriual jr-rsticc systcm.'['his carsc is ovcr 10 years olcl ancl who is to say that any witnesses are L'ven alive or traceable which would now L;enefit the appellant and even if a retrial took place after 10 years and he wus convicted it would take even lorrger for his appeal to reach the high court whicl-r wcluld not bc to his aclvantage.

22.Having found the guilty plea to be voluntary and genuine the question arises whether the appellant can appeal against his conviction at all.'l'he altswer is fouucl in S.412 Cr.1'}C r,r,hich is set out belovv for casc of retereltcL.:

" 472. No fippefrl in certairt cfises when acused pleads gtdlty, Nofrpil/r stnrulirrg nnytltittg lu:reinnbope contnined, rulrcre fin ncaned person lms plenr{ed guilty nnrl ltns beert corn,icted by n (Iligh Cow't) n Court o[Scssions ()r Mngistt'nla o.i tlrc first c/r.rss orr stch 1'tlen, there shall be no allpefll excep t as to llrc exf ent or legalitryf the ,l s e t tt e n cc", ( bol rl aclcletl)

t S 1t

23, Ort pleas tll'guilt),as in this cars(,, eut a,:peal under S,412 Cr.PC / n,ill cirrly lie as to f/r(, e.1, tertt or legalitry of the setftence.

24.In this case the charge was of rnurder under 5.302 (b) PPC which the appellant plearls gr"riltt, to. The clnly ma.ndated sentence under the law for a cor-I\riction for murcler under Section 302 (1r) PPC is either cieath or life if tirere'arLr grouncls rr.coEIrlize,l under the law to reduce thc'sentence frotn rleath to life. In this case the death sentence was not hancled o\ rr-l to the appellarrt and insteacl he was awarded a life seutetrcc. I'crha ps the lesscr sentence was hancled down to the erppcllaut otr accor-rnt of his gr-rilty plea which saving the time of the court. In ally event however the court has no power to reduce his sc'tttetlce to less that that of life irnprisonment which has already beel awarclecl to him.

.{ 25. T'hr-rs, for the reelsons mentioned above, the appeal is ctismissed. A copy of this Jr-rc{gment shall Lrc sent to the appeltant who is in jail for his infurmation.

JU E | 1 I t.,lz\ r IIuf'iz l:alrttl*'