SARDAR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE
This jail appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenges the conviction of the appellants, Sardar and Dildar, primarily on the ground of an alleged contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony regarding the weapon used against the deceased. The core legal question is whether discrepancies in weapon attribution and medical findings vitiate the eyewitness testimony and the application of common intention. The court held that there was no material discrepancy between the medical and ocular evidence, noting that the injured eyewitness corroborated the use of the .12 bore pistol by one of the appellants, and that both appellants were present and active during the incident. The court laid down the principle that the presence of an accused and active participation, along with corroborative medical evidence on another injured witness, sufficiently sustains a conviction under common intention, even if specific shots aimed at the deceased missed or left no corresponding injuries.
- Whether discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding weapon use is sufficient to set aside a conviction?
- Does the absence of specific weapon injuries on a deceased person exonerate an accused shown to be present and participating with common intention?
- Whether leave to appeal can be recalled upon re-evaluation of the prosecution and medical evidence?
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ This Jail Appeal by Sardar and Dildar by leave of this Court granted on 21‑1‑1981 on the ground that the injuries caused to Muhammad Ali deceased, who is alleged to have been shot at by Dildar appellant with a .12 bore pistol were, in fact, caused by rifle shots and as such the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony of the eye‑witnesses to that extent.
2. We have carefully gone through the prosecution version as given by the eye‑witnesses as also the medical evidence. We notice that according to the prosecution Sardar appellant who was carrying a rifle is also stated to have fired at Muhammad Ali deceased, while Dildar appellant shot at him with his .12 bore pistol. The absence of .12 bore injuries on the person of Muhammad Ali deceased may, at the most go to show that either he did not fire at the deceased or the shots fired by him missed. But in any case it is established that he was present with Sardar throughout the incident in which the two persons were killed and one, namely Saeed Ahmad (P. W. If) was injured Saeed P. W. is stated to have been fired at by Dildar with .12 bore pistol and medical examination reveals the presence of pellet injuries on his person. As such Dildar was rightly convicted along with Sardar by application of section 34, P. P. C.
3. After carefully considering the evidence we are of the view that there is no discrepancy between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony.
Leave order is, therefore, recalled and the petition dismissed.
M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.