Rooh Ullah, etc vs The State, etc
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained the conviction of the petitioners under charges of homicide and murderous assault resulting from a property feud in which two persons were shot dead and one injured. The core legal question involves the reliability of eyewitness testimony, particularly that of an injured prosecution witness, in the presence of alleged contradictions, unproved motive, and failure to recover a weapon from one of the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent eyewitness accounts, prompt reporting of the daylight incident, and corroborative medical evidence, which together excluded the possibility of deliberation or fabrication. The Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that minor investigative shortcomings, such as the non-recovery of a weapon, do not undermine credible and consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by an injured witness.
- Does the failure of an investigating officer to recover a weapon from an accused undermine otherwise credible prosecution evidence?
- Whether the testimony of an injured prosecution witness can be relied upon in the absence of corroborative recovery.
- Do bald denials by an accused override consistent prosecution evidence supported by prompt reporting and medical examination?
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.