MUKHTAR AHMED vs THE STATE
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of Muhammad Sharif, for which he was sentenced to death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained based on the ocular testimony of two witnesses, despite the absence of recovery of the weapon of offence and the lack of forensic evidence such as empty cartridges from the crime scene. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the death sentence, finding that the ocular account provided by the witnesses was credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the non-recovery of the weapon of offence is not fatal to the prosecution's case when the ocular evidence is otherwise reliable and inspires confidence. The judgment reinforces the principle that credible eyewitness testimony alone can sustain a conviction in a murder case, even in the absence of corroborative physical evidence like the recovery of the weapon.
- Is the non-recovery of the weapon of offence fatal to the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
- Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the basis of credible ocular testimony?
- Does the absence of forensic evidence, such as empty cartridges, necessarily invalidate a conviction based on eyewitness accounts?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Petitioner was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to death for the murder of Muhammad Sharif father of complainant Muhammad Amin P.W.5. The incident took place at 6-00 a.m. On 4-6-1994. The ocular account of the incident has been furnished by Muhammad Amin complainant who appeared as P.W.5. He is the son of the deceased and Muhammad Rashid, resident of the Illaqa who appeared as P.W.6.
2. We have gone through the evidence of these two witnesses and find that the same inspires confidence and presence of these two witnesses at the spot at the relevant time is also proved beyond any doubt.##TSE# The only defence plea raised in the cross-examination of P.W.6 by the petitioner was that on the day of occurrence, there was cross-firing between Nathoo party and Haji Sultan Mughal party and that the deceased was hit by bullet on account of this cross-firing. No suggestion was made that the cross-firing took place at 6-00 a.m. When the incident took place.
3. When questioned, learned counsel frankly admitted that no report or F.I.R. Was lodged for the said cross-firing on the said date in the village by anyone. He however, submitted that no recovery of .7 mm rifle was made which was allegedly used by the petitioner. He also admitted that no empty from the spot was also recovered, therefore, in our view, non-recovery of weapon of offence in the circumstances of the case was not fatal to the prosecution case. The ocular account given by the witnesses was such which could be sufficient to bring home guilt to the petitioner.
4. No case for interference has been made out, therefore, the conviction of the petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. And award of death sentence do not suffer from any legal infirmity as the findings have been recorded on correct and elaborate appraisal of evidence which has proved beyond any doubt the guilt of the petitioner.
Cited by 5 cases
- Deedar Ali alias Dildar alias Raja Versus State 2026 YLR 1897
- Ghulam Rasool vs The State 2024 SCP 327, 2024 SCMR 2048
- HUNAR SHAH alias ANAR SHAH and anothers vs KHAN ZAD GUL and anothers 2014 YLR 1180
- INTIZAR AHMAD alias TAHIRI Versus State 2010 MLD 1879
- RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH Versus State 2007 YLR 670