MUHAMMAD AYUB AND Another vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court, which modified the convictions and sentences of the petitioners, Muhammad Ayub and Abdullah, for murder and hurt. The petitioners were originally convicted by the trial court for the murder of Hakim Ali and causing injuries to Hakim (P.W.), with Muhammad Ayub receiving a death sentence and Abdullah receiving life imprisonment. The High Court subsequently reduced Muhammad Ayub's death sentence to life imprisonment and acquitted Abdullah of the murder charge, considering his time served sufficient for the hurt offense. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the evidence, specifically the reliance on the testimony of a single injured eye-witness despite the trial court's rejection of motive evidence and weapon recoveries, warrants a re-examination of the convictions. The Supreme Court, finding the case fit for further scrutiny, granted leave to appeal to re-examine the evidence. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of judicial review in criminal matters where evidentiary findings are contested, particularly regarding the reliability of solitary eye-witness testimony in capital cases.
- Is a case fit for leave to appeal where the trial court rejected motive and recovery evidence but relied solely on an injured eye-witness?
- Can a High Court reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment while acquitting a co-accused of murder based on the same evidentiary record?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Muhammad Ayub and Abdullah his father having been tried for the murder of Hakim A.I, deceased, and injuries to Hakim (P. -W.) were convicted for murder and hurt.
2. Their co-accused Muhammad Siddique another son of Abdullah was acquitted. The deceased was earlier also injured by the accused side. He was yet to appear against them as a witness. It is alleged that in order to prevent him from doing so, he was attacked sad killed. Muhammad Ayub and Muhammad Siddique allegedly stabbed the deceased in the abdomen. Abdullah gave a sota blow to Hakim (P. W). There were recoveries of respective weapons from the accused as also the motive evidence- in addition to the two eye-witnesses, namely, Hakim and Hashim (P. Ws.). Has him was not relied upon. .The motive was not accepted as such and the recoveries were also disbelieved by the learned trial Judge. Relying on the testimony of the injured eye--witness the two petitioners were convicted for murder and hurt. Muhammad Ayub was awarded death sentence while Abdullah was sentenced to imprisonment for life. This was in addition to the sentence for hurt.
3. Muhammad Siddique was .Acquitted on extension of benefit of doubt because the solitary injury attributed to him was too close to the solitary injury attributed to Muhammad Ayub so as to give arise to supposition that both might have been caused by the same person in quick succession.
4. A Division Beach in the High Court reduced the sentence of death to imprisonment for life insofaras Muhammad Ayub is concerned. Abdullah was acquitted in the charge of murder and the sentence already undergone was considered enough for the offence of hurt.
5. After hearing the learned counsel we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, in order to re-examine the evidence. Order accordingly.