MUHAMMAD YAR Alias MAMU vs The STATE
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentence passed against the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Sargodha, for the murder of Mst. Bibi. The core legal question concerns the proper appraisal of evidence in criminal cases where eye-witnesses have turned hostile, the sole supporting witness is a child under ten years of age, motive evidence fails, and the recovery of the weapon is disbelieved by the trial court. The court held that the circumstances surrounding the reliability of the sole child witness, the failure of motive, and the discarded recovery evidence warranted a thorough re-examination of the case. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the norms for the appraisal of evidence in criminal cases were correctly followed and to review the propriety of the death sentence.
- Whether the testimony of a child witness under ten years of age is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction when other eye-witnesses have turned hostile?
- Does the failure of prosecution to prove motive and recovery warrant a re-examination of the appraisal of evidence in a criminal case?
- Whether the norms for the appraisal of evidence in criminal cases were properly followed by the lower courts?
ORDER
1. DORAB PATEL ,J.--This petition has been filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the sentence of death passed against the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Sargodha, for the murder of Mst. Bibi on 22-11-1972.
2. According to the prosecution P. Ws. Gamman, Mirza and Mst. Sato were the eye-witnesses of the murder: The weapon used for the murder was a gun which, according to the prosecution, had been recovered at the instance of the petitioner on 4-1-1973 from his kotha. And the motive for the crime was that the deceased was the petitioner's aunt and was suspected of having an illicit connection with P. W. Nazir. It was also alleged that the deceased had refused to bide "suspected articles" from the petitioner therefore, on this ground also the petitioner had a grudge against the deceased.
3. Unfortunately for the prosecution, the eye-witnesses turned hostile except for P. W. Mirza, the son of P. W. Gamman. But P. W. Mirz was not even ten years old at the time of the murder. The witness examined to prove the motive for the crime also did not support the prosecution, whilst the evidence of the recovery of the gun was not relied upon by the Sessions Court. In these circumstances the question whether the norms for the appraisal of evidence in criminal cases have been followed requires further examination. The question of sentence would also require examination. Accordingly, we grant leave.