JUMMA vs THE STATE
This jail petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which confirmed the death sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, for the murder of Mst. Ganwar Mai and causing injuries to the informant, Muhammad Afzal. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the death sentence was based solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Muhammad Afzal, whose evidence lacked credibility and was allegedly contradicted by medical evidence. Upon hearing the arguments from both the petitioner's counsel and the Deputy Prosecutor General, the Supreme Court determined that the evidence presented in the case required a thorough reappraisal to ensure justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, allowing the matter to proceed for a detailed examination of the merits of the conviction and sentence based on the conflicting testimonies and medical reports.
- Does the testimony of a single eyewitness, when contradicted by medical evidence, necessitate a reappraisal of the case by the Supreme Court?
- Can a death sentence be sustained solely on the basis of a single eyewitness whose credibility is challenged?
ORDER
' This jail petition for leave to appeal arises out from the judgment dated 2-7-2008, passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, whereby sentence of death awarded to the petitioner by learned Sessions Jude, Rahimyar Khan for causing the murder of Mst. Ganwar Mai and injuries to informant, namely, Muhammad Afzal, was confirmed and the Murder Reference was replied in affirAmative.
2. Learned counsel contends that death sentence was awarded on the statement of single eye- witness viz. The complainant Muhammad Afzal, whose evidence is not of unimpeachable character. The said witness does not appear to be credible and trusted to be true. There is a conflict between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence.
3.After hearing the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and learned DPG, we are of the view that the evidence IA requires to be reappraised. In the circumstances, leave is granted.