GUL HAIDER vs The STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the sentence of death upheld by the High Court. The core legal question involved the re-appraisal of evidence concerning the credibility of ocular testimony from interested witnesses, the remoteness and plausibility of the alleged motive, the lack of independent corroboration from the locality for weapon recoveries, and the four-month abscondence of the petitioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to thoroughly re-appraise the evidence to determine whether the petitioner was rightly convicted and if the capital punishment was warranted under the circumstances. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will grant leave to examine concurrent findings of lower courts where arguable points regarding the appreciation of evidence, motive, and lack of independent corroboration are raised.
- Whether leave to appeal can be granted for re-appraisal of evidence in a capital punishment case when questions regarding the credibility of interested ocular witnesses are raised?
- Does a long remote motive combined with the accused being already a married man cast doubt on the prosecution case?
- Whether the absence of independent local witnesses to support weapon recoveries affects the reliability of the prosecution evidence?
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
M. S.H. QURAISHI, J.-The petitioner is under a sentenced of death, having been found by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, guilty of the murder of Abdul Qayyum deceased and his appeal having failed before the High Court.
2. The relevant occurrence took place on 22-11-1980 at 9.05 a. m. In Shabqadar Bazar, Peshawar, about 1 ----- furlongs from Shabqadar Police Station. Complainant Sabz A.I, brother-in-law of Abdul Qayyum deceased and the latter's brothel -Mujahid were at that time going through the bazar towards their shop. When they were passing by the shop of Sher Gul. Petitioner Gui Harder appeared with a pistol and fired three or four shots at the deceased causing injuries to him, to which he later succumbed in hospital. The motive for the crime was that the deceased had refused to give the hand of his sister in marriage to him. One 32 bore empty was recovered from the spot.
The petitioner, who had fled from the scene at the time of the occurrence, was declared absconder and was arrested four months later on 22-3-1981. A pistol with a holster containing -32 cartridges was recovered from him. The prosecution case rested on the ocular testimony furnished by Sher A.I complainant and Mujahid, the recoveries, the factum of the empty having matched with the pistol, the medical evidence the abacondence of the petitioner and the story, of motive.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to some features of the case, for which he urged that the case was not free front doubt. He pointed out that the story of motive given by Sabz A.I in his evidence that the deceased has refused to give the hand of his sister to the petitioner some six years and again 2/3 months before the occurrence was not believable inasmuch as the period of six years was very remote and as the petitioner, according to his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Was already a married man. He also pointed out that although the occurrence had taken place in a bazar, which was a busy place, yet n independent witness has come forward to support the ocular witness who were both closely related to the deceased. Another aspect of the matter was that even the recovery effected either from the spot or the petitioner is not supported by a witness of the locality and that only the police officials had attested the relevant memos. On both occasions. In the circumstance, we grant leave to re-appraise the evidence in order to see if the petitioner has been rightly held guilty of the murder and if so whether the capital punishment was deserved.
S. Q.