Haji KHAN MUHAMMAD alias DAKHAN vs GHULAM RASOOL and 3 others
This acquittal appeal challenges the judgment dated 21-3-2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, whereby respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were acquitted of charges under sections 302, 114, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondents based on the available evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the sole eye-witness examined was an uncorroborated chance witness whose presence at the scene was not independently verified, and that other material witnesses, including the mother of the deceased and the owner of the house where the witness claimed to be sitting, were withheld. Consequently, the court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeal in limine. The key principle laid down is that a conviction for murder cannot safely be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a solitary chance witness whose presence at the crime scene remains doubtful.
- Can a person be convicted for murder on the sole testimony of an uncorroborated chance witness?
- Whether an acquittal judgment can be set aside when material prosecution witnesses are not examined at trial?
- Is the testimony of a chance witness sufficient to establish guilt up to the hilt in a criminal trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' This acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-3-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar whereby he has acquitted respondents Nos.1 to 3 of the charge of commission of offence punishable under sections 302, 114 and 34, P. P . C .
2. ' Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Saleem GN Jessar, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that there was sufficient evidence on record to establish the commission of murder of deceased Gul Hassan and therefore, the judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside.
4. ' We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence recorded at trial with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant.
5. We find that there is one eye-witness only who was examined at trial namely Sajan and he is not resident of village Balledai where the incident took place. He is resident of village Goongo Pir which is about 2/3 miles away from the place of incident. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of incident he was sitting in the house of Muhammad Nawaz where he heard the cries coming from the house of Ghulam Rasool and went there. P.W., Ashique, who was allegedly sitting with him, has not been examined at trial and likewise Muhammad Nawaz, in whose house the sole eye-witness was sitting, has not been examined to establish that on the day of incident P.W. Sajan had left his village and was present in his house at 7-30 a.m. On the sole testimony of a chance witness no person can be convicted for the commission of offence of murder.
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Hashim Chandio Advocate for the respondents has further pointed out that Mst.
7. Anwar Khatoon mother of deceased was also present at the time of incident but she has not been examined at trial.
8. ' The learned State counsel has supported the impugned judgment contending that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt to the respondents and consequently the learned trial Court rightly acquitted which is not open to any exception.
9. We have given our careful consideration to the material on record and we are of the considered view that the prosecution had not brought home the guilt to the respondents upto the hilt, and the sole ocular testimony of P.W. Sajan, a chance witness, was not sufficient to award the conviction and sentence for commission of murder. It would be appropriate to observe that the complainant KhanMuhammad is not eye-witness of the incident.
10. ' We are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is not open to any exception and consequently the acquittal of the respondents is upheld. Acquittal appeal is without substance which stands dismissed in limine.
11. ' The respondents Nos.1 to 3 are present on surety. Their bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged.