SUDHEER AKHTAR vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal matter where the petitioner challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which had upheld a conviction. The petitioner contended that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged with significant delay and was recorded at the spot by police acting on undisclosed information. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the prosecution's eye-witnesses were related, inimical, and chance witnesses requiring independent corroboration, that the motive remained unproven, and that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account. The petitioner further alleged that the High Court's judgment lacked a serious appraisal of the evidence, relying instead on conjectures and surmises. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both the petitioner and the Additional Prosecutor-General for the State, allowed the petition and granted leave to appeal. The Court held that a reappraisal of the evidence available on the record is necessary to ensure a proper judicial determination of the case.
- Is a reappraisal of evidence warranted when the High Court's judgment is alleged to be based on conjectures and surmises?
- Does the conflict between medical evidence and ocular account justify the grant of leave to appeal in a criminal case?
- Are related and inimical witnesses required to be corroborated by independent evidence?
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---It has inter alia been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with a noticeable delay and the same had been recorded at the spot whereat the local police had reached on its own after receiving information about the incident from an undisclosed source; the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were related, inimical and chance witnesses who could not be relied upon without receiving independent corroboration; the motive set up by the prosecution had remained far from being established and the medical evidence produced by the prosecution was in conflict with the ocular account. It has also been argued that the reasons recorded by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in the impugned judgment do not depict serious appraisal of the evidence and such reasons are not only conjectural but they are also based mostly upon surmises. As against that the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Prosecutor- General, Punjab appearing for the State this petition is allowed and leave to appeal is granted to reappraise the IB evidence available on the record of this case. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.