ISRAR HUSSAIN vs The STATE
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involves the reliability of ocular testimony and corroborative evidence in a criminal trial where the accused was apprehended at the scene of the crime. The Supreme Court held that minor inconsistencies in the statements of eye-witnesses do not detract from their veracity, and the natural presence of witnesses along with prompt apprehension at the spot with a blood-stained weapon establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on credible ocular testimony supported by medical evidence and prompt recovery will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
- Whether minor inconsistencies in the testimony of eye-witnesses are sufficient to discard their evidence?
- Does the previous conviction of an eye-witness automatically render their testimony untrustworthy?
- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise the evidence concurrently believed by the lower courts in a criminal matter?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This petition by Israr Husain is directed against the judgment dated 28-1- 1979 of the Lahore High Court whereby his appeal was dismissed and his conviction and sentence under section 302, P. P. C. Was maintained.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he entered the house of Haji Abdul Aziz, P. W. 7 with a view to outrage the modesty of his daughter Mst. Azra Bibi, aged about 18 years, and when she offered resistance, he stabbed her to death. The occurrence took place on 12-3-19.'4 at about 12 noon when Mst. Azra was alone in the house and her father Haji Abdul Aziz, P. W. 7 was sitting on a cot under a tree outside his house in the village along with Abdul Hamid P. W. 8 and Abdul Sattar P.
W. 9.
3. On hearing the shrieks of the girl, all three of them rushed to the spot and saw the petitioner giving knife injuries to Mst. Azra. They over--powered and apprehended him at the spot along with his blood-stained knife, P.
1. He was then taken to the police station and was produced before Ahmad Salim, S. H. O. P. W. 11 along with his knife. The S. H. O. Arrested him and took into possession the aforementioned knife which was found, subsequently, to be stained with human blood.
Similarly, two clothes of the petitioner, taken into possession by the Investigating Officer, were also found to be stained with human blood.
4. The prosecution case depends mainly on the ocular testimony of the three eye-witnesses and is supported by the recovery of blood-stained knife and blood-stained clothes of the accused and also the fact that he was apprehended at the spot and was taken and produced before the police along-- with his knife shortly after the occurrence. Medical evidence also supports their testimony.
The accused simply denied his guilt and pleaded that he had been involved in the case due to enmity.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has attacked the testimony of the three eye-witnesses, and has tried to show some inconsistencies in their testimony in relation to the passage through which they entered the house and reached the room where the petitioner was attacking the deceased. . He contended further that Abdul Sattar P. W. Is a previous convict and should not, therefore, be believed, and further that the prosecution story is very unnatural inasmuch as the appellant would not have entered the house to commit an outrage on the deceased when her father was sitting outside the house.
6. We are not impressed with these contentions Abdul Aziz P. W. The father of the girl is natural witness and the other two witnesses who were sitting with him are independent witnesses. They had no motive to implicate the appellant falsely. The mere fact that Abdul Sattar was a previous convict does not necessarily make him a false witness. His testimony ' supported by two other witnesses and other circumstances mentioned above.
7. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel in the testimony of the eye-witnesses are minor in nature and do not detract from their veracity. The prosecution story is quite tenable for it is quite possible that the petitioner knowing that the girl was alone in the house, tried to avail of the opportunity under the impression that she would co-operate. The number of injuries inflicted by him on the deceased indicate that there was more to the matter than admitted by the father and the appellant was probably a rejected lover who acted in desperation.
We do not consider this to be fit a case for reappraisal of evidence. Petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without merit.