Rooh Ullah and others vs The State and others
The petitioners challenged their conviction and sentences for double murder and murderous assault arising from an incident on 11.06.2007 in District Nowshera, which resulted in life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution case was fraught with contradictions, unproved motive, and lack of weapon recovery, rendering the testimony of the injured eye-witness untrustworthy. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the injured eye-witness was consistent, reliable, and supported by a promptly lodged FIR and medical evidence, and that minor investigation flaws such as non-recovery of a weapon from one petitioner do not undermine the overwhelming prosecution proof. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of a credible injured eye-witness, supported by prompt reporting and medical corroboration, sustains a conviction notwithstanding minor investigative shortcomings like unrecovered weapons.
- Whether the testimony of an injured eye-witness can be relied upon despite minor investigation lapses?
- Does the failure to recover a weapon from an accused invalidate the prosecution case when ocular account is strong?
- Whether prompt reporting of a daylight crime excludes the possibility of deliberations?
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Tarifullah, 55/60, and Muhammad Rawail, 20, were shot dead on 11.06.2007 at 5:00 p.m. within the precincts of Police Station Razakhel, District Nowshera, in the backdrop of an ongoing feud over a piece of property; Tariq Azam PW survived the assault to report the incident to the police at 7:25 p.m; the petitioners claimed trial before a learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Nowshera that culminated into their conviction both on the charges of homicide as well as murderous assault vide judgment dated 31.10.2013; they were sentenced to imprisonment for life as well as 5-years rigorous imprisonment, respectively; co-accused Shahid, arrayed through supplementary statement, was, however , acquitted from the charge, maintained by the High Court, vide impugned judgment dated 06.10.2016, vires whereof, are being assailed by the petitioners on the grounds that prosecution case, fraught with contradictions and doubts, merited outright rejection, in the face of an unproved motive. Prosecution's failure to effect recovery of weapon from Rooh Ullah petitioner yet another predicament faced by the prosecution, and, thus, evidence furnished by the injured PW was far from being the whole truth and, thus, was not worthy of implicit reliance, concluded the learned counsel. Contrarily , learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for complainant defended the impugned judgment.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. We have gone through the statements of eye-witnesses that include an injured to find them in a comfortable unison both on the salient features of the case as well as matters collateral thereto. No doubt, injuries on the person of a witness are not a passport into the realm of truth, however , the learned counsel has not been able to point out even a single circumstance to suspect testimony of Azam Tariq PW. Incident, a daylight affair, was reported with a remarkable promptitude followed by examination of the injured as well as autopsy , circumstances that cumulatively exclude possibility of consultations or deliberations. Investigating Officer's failure to recover a weapon from Rooh Ullah does not overshadow the preponderance of prosecution evidence that includes recovery from the principal accused. Bald denials alone do not override the prosecution evidence, rightly relied by the courts below . Petition fails. Leave refused.