MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus RAB NAWAZ ALIAS SECURITY
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment rendered by the High Court, which had overturned the trial court's conviction of the respondent for the murder of Khurshid Alam. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the medical evidence's failure to corroborate the ocular testimony. The petitioner argued that the High Court incorrectly assessed the medical findings concerning the distance from which the fatal shot was fired. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning sound, noting that the medical evidence regarding burning and blackening on the wound was inconsistent with the distances alleged by the prosecution witnesses. The Court held that the High Court's findings on the evidentiary discrepancies were unassailable and that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal, establishing that where medical evidence contradicts the ocular account regarding the distance of firing, it undermines the credibility of the prosecution's case.
- Can medical evidence regarding the distance of a gunshot wound be used to discredit ocular testimony?
- Does the presence of burning and blackening on a gunshot wound contradict a claim that the shot was fired from a significant distance?
- Is an appellate court's finding on the appreciation of evidence immune from interference if it is based on sound legal principles?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
S. A. NUSRAT, J .‑‑The respondent was tried by the Additional) Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura on the charge of murder of Khurshid Alam deceased under section ‑302, P.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to death with a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default one year A R.I. The judgment of the trial Court was successfully challenged before the High Court and the respondent was acquitted on a finding that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt to him beyond any reasonable doubt, as per impugned judgment.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the judgment of the learned High Court. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding; of the learned High Court that the medical evidence did not furnish corroboration to the ocular evidence, was erroneous. In this regard, the learned High Court found that according to the medical evidence, injury on the chest of the deceased, which was alleged to be the result of second shot, had caused wound measuring 1" x 3/4" and I" with burning and blackening. A shot fired from a distance of 10/12 Karams as stated by Imam Din, P.W.11, or even from a distance of four yards as stated by Mushtaq Ahmad, P.W.10, could not have caused burning and blackening. Admittedly, distance of 12 Karams would be near about 20 yards and the finding of the learned High Court on this point is, therefore, unassailable. Reference to the Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 1975 Edition, made by the learned counsel was of no help.
Admittedly there were two eye‑witnesses in the case, namely Mushtaq Ahmad complainant, who is the brother of the deceased and Imam Din, P.W.11, who, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was an independent witness. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent referred to the cross‑examination of Imam Din to successfully show that he could not be placed on a high pedestal of the category of an independent witness.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court, we are satisfied that the judgment of the learned High Court has proceeded on sound principles of law and calls for no interference. The petition merits no consideration and is dismissed.
M. Y . H . / M‑5121 S Petition dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD TAJ alias KALA vs THE STATE 1997 P Cr. L J 1043