AMJAD ALI and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Amjad Ali, who was convicted under sections 460 and 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Maqsood. The petitioner challenged his conviction and death sentence, arguing that the prosecution's case relied on unreliable eye-witness testimony from the deceased's father and brother, who were allegedly absent during the occurrence. The petitioner further contended that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained nine-hour delay, that physical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony regarding the location of the crime, and that the motive was insufficient to support the conviction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the conviction given the alleged discrepancies and lack of corroboration. Upon reviewing the submissions, the Supreme Court determined that the entire evidence required a fresh reappraisal to ensure justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the case warranted a comprehensive re-examination of the evidentiary record to address the significant doubts raised by the petitioner regarding the prosecution's narrative.
- Does a conviction based on ocular testimony require reappraisal when significant discrepancies exist regarding the presence of eye-witnesses and the physical evidence?
- Can a conviction be sustained when there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the medical evidence is alleged to be inconsistent with ocular testimony?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Amjad and Shakeel were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Sheikhupura for committing the murder of one Maqsood at about 1-30 a.m. On the night between 15th and 16th of September, 1994. Both of them were found guilty of the said charge; were convicted under sections 460 and 302/34, P.P.C. And while Amjad had been punished with death, his co-convict, namely, Shakeel was directed to suffer to sentence of imprisonment for life. On an appeal filed by them, Shakeel convict was acquitted by the learned High Court through a judgment dated 28-11-2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No,88 of 1988 whereas the sentence of death awarded to Amjad convict was confirmed as a result of dismissal of the said appeal to his extent.
2. Hence this petition by Amjad Ali convict.
3. It is submitted before us that the two alleged eye-witnesses namely, Noor Muhammad complainant (P.W.3) who is the father of the deceased and Akhtar Mehmood (P.W.4) who is a brother of the deceased, had not witnessed the occurrence as they were away on their respective places of work; that the occurrence in question had gone un-witness and it was on account of mere suspicion and as a result of fabrication and concoction and Amjad petitioner had been implicated in the crime in question; that the said submission was being strengthened by the fact that the F.I.R. Had been recorded after an unexplained delay of more than nine hours when the police station was only four miles away from the place of occurrence; that further doubts are available in the prosecution case on account of the absence of any blood-stains on the roof to the house of the complainant and instead availability of bloodstained earth on the roof of the house of a neighbor of the complainant, namely Muhammad Khan; that the motive in the present case was a double-edged weapon which could well have led to the false implication of the petitioner on account of mere suspicion; that no untoward incident had taken place between the parties for more than two years since the release of the accused on bail in the earlier case; that the medical evidence was not in consonance with the ocular testimony; that the occurrence had taken place at the dead of the night and had gone unwitnessed and that in the circumstances the conviction recorded against Amjad petitioner could not be sustained.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is a fit case where the entire evidence deserved to be reappraised in the light of the above noted submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
5. This petition is, therefore, allowed and leave is granted for the said purpose.