MUHAMMAD AHMED and others vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the criminal revision of the petitioners and maintaining their conviction and sentences under sections 356, 452, and 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with sentences running concurrently and benefit under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question involved whether the non-recovery of the weapon of offence vitiates the conviction when there is consistent and overwhelming ocular testimony. The Supreme Court held that the recovery of a weapon of offence serves merely as corroborative evidence to strengthen the direct ocular account. The court laid down the principle that where an overwhelming and reliable ocular account exists establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt, the failure to prove the recovery of the weapon does not render the conviction unsustainable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Does the non-recovery of the weapon of offence render a conviction unsustainable when supported by an overwhelming ocular account?
- What is the evidentiary value of the recovery of a weapon of offence in criminal cases?
- Can concurrent sentences and the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted upon conviction under sections 356, 452, and 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 356, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SH. RIAZ AHMED, C.J.--- This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order dated 12-5-2003 whereby the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the criminal revision preferred on behalf of the petitioners maintaining their conviction and sentences on charges under sections 356, 452 and 354, Pakistan Penal Code with direction that all sentences would run concurrently and the petitioners would also be entitled to the benefit under section 382-B, Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioners spelling out from case F.I.R. No,328, dated 25-12- 2001 registered with Police Station Minchan Abad on charges under sections 324/354/337-F(ii)/336, Pakistan Penal Code is that on the fateful day the petitioners had tried to apprehend Mst. Asia Bibi in the fields on the suspicion that she was carrying on with Muhammad Afzal. Mst. Asia Bibi in order to save her life ran towards her house. Muhammad Ahmed armed with Chhuri along with Muhammad Fayyaz and Ashiq Ali followed her and ultimately Ashiq Ali caught hold both the arms of Mst. Asia while Muhammad Ahmed chopped off her nose with the knife and subsequently Ashiq Ali shaved her head with Chhuri. On hearing the hue and cry, the witnesses were attracted to the spot and had also tried to apprehend the culprits, but they managed to escape from the spot. At the trial, the witnesses and the victim of the attack had supported the prosecution case on all material particulars, and therefore, no exception can be taken to the dismissal of their revision.
3. The learned counsel mainly argued that since the recovery of Chhuri was not proved, therefore, the conviction in this case was not sustainable. We are afraid that the contention is devoid of force and is hereby repelled inasmuch as recovery of weapon of offence is only the corroborative piece of evidence to strengthen the ocular account. We have noticed that in this case overwhelming ocular account exists to connect the petitioners with the commission of crime and in our view the prosecution case stands established against the petitioners beyond an iota of doubt, therefore, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.