KARAM ELAHI vs The STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by Karam Elahi against his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Fateh Khatoon, which resulted in a sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine enhanced under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the credibility of an eye-witness belonging to a lower socio-economic status ('Mueen') and the sufficiency of ocular testimony corroborated by eye-witnesses to sustain a murder conviction despite the rejection of a recovery weapon and a motive primarily attributed to an acquitted co-accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the testimony of a witness cannot be discredited merely on the ground of social status or alleged influence, especially when no material contradictions exist and the witnesses have no motive for false substitution. The key principle laid down is that the status of a witness as a 'Mueen' does not inherently render them untruthful, and ocular testimony from natural witnesses, if reliable and consistent, remains sufficient to uphold a criminal conviction.
- Does the status of a witness as a 'Mueen' render their testimony regarding a murder occurrence inherently incredible?
- Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the alleged weapon recovery is disbelieved?
- Does the absence of a direct motive ascribed to a specific accused invalidate an otherwise reliable eyewitness account of the crime?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Karam Elahi, petitioner, was tried along with his brother Rabnawaz for the Murder of Ms:. Fateh Khatoon. The learned trial Judge convicted both of them under section 302, P.
P. C. And sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,500 each. On appeal the High Court acquitted Rabnawaz but dismissed the appeal of Karam Elahi, petitioner. A revision for enhancement of sentence had also been filed by the complainant, which was accepted to the extent that the fine of Karam Elahi was enhanced to Rs. 10,000 under section 544-A, Cr. P. C.
2. The motive for the offence is stated to be that Gul Muhammad, complainant had promised to give the hand of his daughter Mst. Fateh Khatoon, deceased, in the marriage of Rabnawaz (acquitted accused) about 4/5 years prior to the occurrence. But subsequently, he refused to abide by his promise. About six months after the refusal Gul Muhammad engaged Mst. Fateh Khatoon, deceased, to one Muhammad Afzal, and fixed the date of marriage for 8-4-1974. On 5-4- 1974 some guests came the house of Gul Muhammad in connection with this marriage, and at about degarwela Mst. Fateh Khatoon deceased, alongwith her sister Shahnaz Akhtar, went to Mst.
Zainab, P. W.For getting some loaves baked in her oven. After a short while the two accused also came there. Karam Elahi was holding a gun while Rabnawaz, acquitted accused was empty handed. Rabnawaz said to Mst. Fateh Khatoon that he would get her married. On this Karam Elahi fired a shot at her, hitting her on the right side of the chest, upon which she fell down and died. Her father Gul Muhammad, P. W. And one Ahmed Khan who had also come to the spot, also saw the occurrence. They tried to apprehend them but the accused managed to escape. The F. I. R. Was lodged by Gul Muhammad P. W. 8.
3. During the investigation, gun P-5 was recovered from Karam Elahi. The recovery was disbelieved by the High Court and the conviction of the petitioner was maintained only on the testimony of the two eye-witnesses, namely Gul Muhammad, P. W. 8 and Mst. Zainab, P. W. 9.
4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the credibility of Mst. Zainab is doubtful as she is a "Mueen" anti was under the influence of the complainant who are influential persons, He has taken us through her statement but has not been able to point out any material contradiction in the same. The mere fact that she is a 'Mueen' does not go to discredit her.
The petitioner is of the same status as the complainant, which is evident from the fact that the later had earlier betrothed his daughter to his real brother Rabnawaz (acquitted accused). It cannot therefore, be said that, if at all Mst. Zainab Bibi was under great influence of the complainant as compared to that of the accused.
5. The learned counsel next contended that no motive has been ascribed to Karam Elahi. It is true that the main motive lies with his brother Rabnawaz, but then the P. Ws. Have no motive to involve Karam Elahi falsely and attribute to him the main part, although they themselves stated that Rabnawaz was also present at the spot
6. After fully considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel we find no force in this petition which is therefore, dismissed,