Pakistan Case Law
2010 SCMR 1741

NAZIR AHMED alias JEERA vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2010 SCMR 1741
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Jail Petition No,989 of 2009
Date2010-06-04
Judge(s)Nasir-ul-Mulk and Rahmat Hussain Jafferi
Authored byNasir-Ul-Mulk
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction and sentence of death. The petitioner, the sole accused, challenged the conviction on several grounds: that the crime was unseen, that the eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased, that the medical evidence regarding the blackening of the wound contradicted the site plan indicating a distance of 27 feet between the parties, and that the prosecution provided contradictory motives. The petitioner further argued that the death sentence was inappropriate in the circumstances. Upon considering the contentions, the Court granted leave to appeal to re-examine the evidence presented at trial and to review the quantum of the sentence imposed. The holding establishes that where significant discrepancies exist between medical evidence and the site plan, and where questions regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the appropriateness of capital punishment are raised, a re-examination of the evidence by the appellate court is warranted.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does a contradiction between medical evidence regarding wound characteristics and the site plan regarding distance warrant a re-examination of evidence in a criminal appeal?
  • Is leave to appeal appropriate when the reliability of eyewitnesses and the quantum of a death sentence are challenged?
leave to appealdeath sentencemedical evidencesite planeyewitness testimonyre-examination of evidencequantum of sentence

ORDER

1. ' NASIR-UL-MULK, J.---Though the petitioner is the sole accused in the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was an unseen crime.' That all the eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased; that the medical report showing blackening on the single injury received by the deceased is contradicted by the site plan, which shows that distance between the accused and the deceased at the time of occurrence was 27 feet; that the prosecution has attributed contradictory motive for the crime. That in any case the petitioner ought not to have been awarded sentence of death. Leave to appeal is granted to reexamine the evidence and the quantum of sentence.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.