AJMAL KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the appellant's appeal and affirmed the trial court's conviction. The petitioner contends that the prosecution case rests on no evidence, arguing that the two eye-witnesses were closely related to the deceased and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the High Court's judgment was perfunctory, failing to address these critical evidentiary issues, thereby violating the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in Sahab Khan v. The State and Farrukh Sayyar v. Chairman, NAB, Islamabad. Upon hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The core legal question is whether the High Court properly applied the principles for the safe administration of criminal justice when evaluating the credibility of interested witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence. The Court will determine if the lower court's failure to address these specific contentions renders the impugned judgment legally unsustainable.
- Does a failure by the High Court to address specific evidentiary contentions regarding interested witnesses render a judgment perfunctory?
- What are the requirements for the safe administration of criminal justice when evaluating the testimony of closely related eye-witnesses?
ORDER
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Inter alia contends that it A was a case of no evidence; that only two so called eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased; that they could not reasonably explained their presence at the spot; that the learned High Court in dismissing the appellant's. Appeal and affirming the judgment of the learned trial Court did not advert to afore-referred issues and the judgment on that score is perfunctory and violative of the law laid down by this Court in Sahab Khan v. The State (1997 SCM R 871) and Farrukh Sayyar v. Chairman, Nab, Islamabad (2004 SCM R 1).
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, leave is granted, inter alia, to consider the afore-mentioned points as also whether the principles laid down by this court for safe administration of justice were kept in view while rendering the judgment under challenge.