MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs MUHAMMAD IJAZ Alias JAJJU AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal in a criminal case. The petitioner challenges the acquittal of the respondents, raising specific legal questions regarding the appreciation of evidence. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of a dying declaration provided by an independent witness, the significance of minor injuries on an accused person as circumstantial evidence of their presence at the scene, the impact of a established motive, and the sufficiency of evidence available in a pending State appeal against acquittal. The Court, upon preliminary hearing, found these points sufficiently substantial to warrant further examination. Consequently, the Court issued notice to the respondents to address these contentions, specifically noting that the State appeal against acquittal had already been admitted against one of the co-accused. The holding is procedural, directing the matter to be set for a formal hearing to determine whether the acquittal warrants interference based on the grounds urged by the petitioner.
- Does the testimony of an independent witness regarding a dying declaration constitute sufficient evidence to challenge an acquittal?
- Can minor injuries on an accused person, contemporaneous with the time of occurrence, serve as strong circumstantial evidence of guilt?
- Does the existence of a strong motive, combined with other evidence, warrant a re-examination of an acquittal order?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we deem it necessary to issue notice to the respondent inter alia on the following points urged from the petitioner's side:-
(a) That the testimony of Muhammad Saleem P W-5, a passer-by who is stated to be an independent witness, furnished direct evidence of dying declaration ; both against Ijaz and Nawaz accused, as also corro--boratory evidence qua the other ocular evidence ;
(b) that Ijaz accused had minor injuries on his person and as stated were contemporaneous in origin, with the time of occurrence and that they furnished strong circumstantial evidence against him ;
(c) that Ijaz respondent had also a strong motive ; and
(d) that there was sufficient evidence for examination, against the respon--dents in the State appeal against acquittal which stands admitted against Muhammad Nawaz one of the accused persons.
2. Mr. Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for the respondents accepts notice. Let the matter come up for hearing on 19-6-1982.
3. Notice Issued.