MUHAMMAD EHSAN Versus ZULFIQAR ALI
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the High Court, which had acquitted one respondent of a murder charge and altered the conviction of the other respondent from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the ocular testimony of chance witnesses and relying instead on the confessional statement of the accused. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's reasoning, which found the eye-witnesses to be unreliable due to their inability to explain their presence at the crime scene and contradictions with medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's rejection of the ocular testimony was neither insubstantial nor perverse. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to accept the accused's version of events in its entirety, which disclosed an offence under section 304, Part I, rather than murder. The petition was dismissed, affirming that appellate courts are justified in rejecting ocular evidence when it is inconsistent with medical findings and lacks credibility.
- Can an appellate court reject ocular testimony if it is inconsistent with medical evidence?
- Is a court justified in accepting the version of an accused in its entirety when the prosecution's ocular evidence is rejected?
- Under what circumstances can a conviction for murder be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the accused's statement?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.- -For causing the death of one Muhammad Sarwar, the respondents, Zulfiqar Ali and his brother Iftikhar Ali, were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala of the offence under section 302, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. For the said offence, Zulfiqar Ali was sentenced to death while Iftikhar Ali was directed to suffer imprisonment for life. They were also asked to pay fines. On appeal and reference, the High Court acquitted Zulfiqar Ali, altered the conviction of Iftikhar Ali to the offence under section 304, Part I, but maintained his sentence of imprisonment for life. The amount of fine was increased to Rs.10,000. An uncle of the deceased who had lodged the F . I . R . has filed this petition to seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court to challenge the acquittal of the respondents of the charge of murder.
2. The deceased and the respondents were neighbours and lived opposite to each other in the same street. According to the prosecution, on 25-9-1978, at Peshiwela, the respondents attacked the deceased in front of their house consequent upon a quarrel between their children. It was alleged that while Iftikhar Ali held the deceased in his clasp Zulfiqar Ali stabbed him with a Churri. The deceased died in the hospital on the next day.
3. Both respondents pleaded not guilty at the trial. Zulfiqar Ali denied his participation in the occurrence whereas Iftikhar Ali admitted that he had stabbed the deceased. His case was that just before the occurrence he had seen the deceased slapping his mother consequent upon a quarrel among children. He went inside the house, brought a Churri and struck a blow in the abdomen of the deceased.
4. In support of its allegations, the prosecution relied upon the ocular testimony provided by Muhammad Ehsan who is the petitioner before us and one Habibullah. It sought corroboration for the ocular testimony from the alleged recovery of a blood-stained Churri from the possession of Zulfiqar Ali. The trial Court believed the eye-witnesses as well as the recovery evidence.
5. The High Court noted that the ocular testimony came from chance witnesses who were unable to provide satisfactory explanations for their presence at the spot. Apart from that, their version was in conflict with the medical evidence. Accordingly, it rejected their evidence entirely. Consequently, it acquitted Zulfiqar Ali of the charge under section 302. It accepted the version of Iftikhar Ali in toto and held that it disclosed the commission of an offence under section 304, Part I, only. It then convicted him of that offence.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that the reasons given by the learned Judges in the High Court for rejecting the ocular testimony were insubstantial or perverse. After rejecting the ocular testimony the learned Judges were left entirely with the statement of Iftikhar Ali. There was no reason to disbelieve any part of his statement. They were therefore right in accepting it without reservation. We can find no basis for interfering with their judgment. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
M . I . / M-212 / S Petition dismissed.