MUJAHID HUSSAIN vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mujahid Hussain against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and his sentence of death for the murder of Abbas. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the ocular testimony, the corroboration of motive, and the credibility of recoveries and the first information report, which was repudiated at trial by its maker. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that a thorough re-appraisal of the ocular evidence, recovery evidence, and motive is necessary to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice and to establish whether the prosecution's case is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that where crucial prosecution witnesses, including the maker of the first information report, repudiate or fail to consistently support the case, the apex court will grant leave to re-examine the evidence to prevent potential miscarriage of justice.
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the maker of the first information report repudiates the same?
- Is a re-appraisal of ocular and recovery evidence warranted when inconsistencies arise regarding the motive for an offense?
- Does the delayed arrest of an accused cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution case to merit a re-examination of the evidence by the Supreme Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-Mujahid Hussain convicted under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced to death and fine for the murder of one Abbas seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 23rd May, 1981 whereby his appeal was dismissed and the death sentence confirmed.
2. On the evening of 18th October, 1975 Abbas was murdered near Gulistan Cinema in Sheikhupura for which his brother Muhammad Ishaq (P. W. 9) charged the petitioner alongwith three others.
3. However, Mujahid, the petitioner, and one Muhammad Yunus were tried for this murder. Mujahid was convicted and sentenced while Muhammad Yunus was acquitted.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is controverted evidence with regard to motive for the occurrence. The first information report has been repudiated by the maker thereof. The eye-witnesses of the occurrence-Ibrahim (P. W. 7) and Ismail (P.W. 6) do not appear to be natural witnesses of the occurrence. The recoveries of the incriminating articles should not be believed and the very fact that no effort was made to arrest the petitioner till 22nd of October, 1975 casts serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution case.
5. We find that this is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal because Muhammad Ishaq who happened to be the brother of the deceased an lodged the report on what was stated to him by the two eye-witnesses has repudiated his own first information report. The motive has not been consistently brought out in the evidence. In -order to ensure safe administration of criminal justice it is necessary to re-appraise the ocular evidence as well as the evidence of recovery and motive with a view to l ensure that the prosecution case has been established beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted.