MUHAMMAD MOHSIN vs The STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court which dismissed his appeal and upheld his conviction in a murder case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of two allegedly inimical eye-witnesses whose presence at the spot was disputed. The Supreme Court held that the case warranted a re-examination of the evidence regarding the reliability and lack of corroboration of the eye-witness testimony. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions in detail.
- Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of inimical eye-witnesses whose presence is disputed?
- Does the absence of corroborative evidence for eye-witness accounts warrant a re-examination of the evidence by the Supreme Court in a criminal appeal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The petitioner seeks Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 23-12-1980 dismissing his appeal in a case under section 302, P. P. C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the prosecution case rests only on the testimony of two eye-witnesses who were inimical and it is apparent from the evidence on the record that they were not present at the spot. He contends that there is no corroboration of their testimony available on the record and it ought not have been relied for convicting the, petitioner.
3. After going through the statements of the eye-witnesses we feel that case needs re-examination of the evidence to consider the above-noted points.
Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose.