PATHAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed the death sentence imposed by the trial court for the murder of Noor Muhammad. The petitioner challenges the conviction, arguing that the prosecution's narrative is inherently implausible. Specifically, the petitioner contends that the conduct of the eyewitnesses—who allegedly stood by while the deceased was attacked with scissors—is unnatural and casts doubt on their presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the prosecution's failure to produce the Investigating Officer caused significant prejudice to the defense. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the evidence and the arguments presented, granted leave to appeal. The Court identified the primary legal questions as whether the failure of eyewitnesses to intervene during the assault renders their presence doubtful, and whether the lower courts adhered to the fundamental principles of fair administration of justice in evaluating the prosecution's case and the evidence presented.
- Does the failure of eyewitnesses to intervene during a violent assault render their presence at the crime scene doubtful?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the Investigating Officer cause prejudice to the accused?
- What are the principles of fair administration of justice regarding the evaluation of eyewitness testimony in murder cases?
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Petitioner's learned counsel seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of High Court of Sindh, dated 9-8-2006 vide which petitioner's appeal was dismissed and death sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court for the murder of Noor Muhammad was confirmed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave on the ground that the prosecution story is repellent to common sense, that it is unbelievable that P. W.1 complainant Sikandar Ali who is real son of Noor Muhammad and two others would remain quiet when Noor Muhammad deceased was being belaboured by petitioner with scissors, that P.W.2 Baradi and P.W.3 Yousuf admittedly are not residents of the locality and are even otherwise closely related to the deceased, that the statement of Sikandar Ali P.W.1 remained uncorroborated by any independent circumstance, that the prosecution did not produce the Investigating Officer which seriously prejudiced the petitioner.
3. The prosecution story briefly stated is that petitioner who was a School Teacher got annoyed with Noor Muhammad, Head Master of the School as the latter transferred him to a far off place and in sequel to the said grudge on the fateful day at 8:45 A.M. He attacked Noor Muhammad and caused him as many as 12 injuries with scissors in the presence of complainant P. W.1 and two other witnesses namely P.W.2 Baradi and P.W.3 Yousuf. According to complainant he did not intervene as he was threatened by the petitioner.
4. Having heard the petitioner's learned counsel at some length and have gone through the evidence on record, leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter-alia, whether the conduct of the witnesses in not intervening to rescue Noor Muhammad makes their presence at the spot doubtful as also the question whether principles of fair administration of justice were adhered to by the learned Courts below.
Cited by 2 cases
- GHULAM NABI Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 80
- TAHIR Versus State 2010 YLR 2732