MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and another vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal matter where the petitioners were sentenced to death on three counts each. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court concerns whether the evidence against the petitioners warrants reappraisal given the complainant's inconsistent stance regarding the innocence of one of the petitioners. The Court observed that the complainant had, on several occasions during the investigation, indicated that the petitioner Muhammad Siddique was innocent. The Court held that the complainant's shifting position regarding the petitioner's culpability cast significant doubt on the veracity of the complainant party and adversely affected the credibility of the allegations against both petitioners. Furthermore, the Court noted that the recovery of weapons of offence from the petitioners during the investigation was legally inconsequential in light of these contradictions. Consequently, the Court found it in the interest of justice to grant leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence against the petitioners, emphasizing that inconsistent testimony from a key witness regarding an accused's innocence undermines the prosecution's case as a whole.
- Does a complainant's inconsistent stance regarding an accused's innocence during investigation warrant a reappraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court?
- Can the recovery of weapons of offence be considered legally inconsequential when the complainant's testimony is found to be unreliable?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to reappraise evidence in a criminal case involving a death sentence?
ORDER
1. ' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---The two petitioners in this petition stand sentenced to death on three counts each. There are indications available on the record that on many occasions during the investigation of this case Muhammad Safdar complainant (P.W.8) wanted to acknowledge that at least Muhammad Siddique, petitioner was innocent in this case. If Muhammad Siddique petitioner was at different stages deemed by the complainant to be innocent then his implication by the complainant during the trial reflected adversely upon the complainant party's veracity and also reacted against correctness of the allegations levelled against Muhammad Anwar Khan alias Anwari petitioner as well. Recovery of weapons of offence from the possession of the present petitioners during the investigation was legally inconsequential. In these circumstances we have found it to be in the interest of justice to reappraise the evidence qua the petitioners. This petition is, therefore, allowed and leave to appeal is granted to reappraise the evidence available on the record qua the petitioners.