MARYAM Versus IRSHAD AHMAD
This matter involves two petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which convicted the petitioners for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The primary legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony provided by two witnesses—one injured and one residing near the crime scene—and whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in commuting the death sentences imposed by the trial court. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding the ocular testimony credible and sufficient to support the findings of the High Court, noting there was no reason for the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused. Regarding the petition for the restoration of death sentences, the Supreme Court held that the High Court provided substantial reasons for its decision to commute the sentences and declined to interfere with that judicial discretion. The Court affirmed that where ocular evidence is consistent and credible, particularly involving an injured witness, it constitutes sufficient grounds for conviction, and appellate courts will not interfere with sentencing discretion absent compelling justification.
- Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient to support a conviction in a murder case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in commuting a death sentence?
- Does the death of a petitioner during the pendency of a criminal petition for leave to appeal cause the petition to abate?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur whereby the petitioners in Cr.P.S.L.A. No. 344 of 1985 were convicted of offences under sections 302 and 307, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Of these petitioners, Fida Hussain has since died and as such so far as he is concerned the petition stands abated.
2. The High Court has found the ocular testimony worthy of credit and we see no reason to take a different view in the matter. It may be mentioned that there were two eye-witnesses. One of them was injured during the course of occurrence and the other lived at a distance of 3 Acres from the spot. There was no reason why they should have falsely implicated the petitioners in the case. Their evidence was sufficient to support their conviction.
3. As regards the petition filed by the mother of the deceased for the restoration of the sentences of death imposed upon the petitioners by the trial Court it has no merit for the High Court has given substantial reasons for not confirming the sentences of death. We can find no justification for interfering with the discretion exercised by the High Court. Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
S.Q./M-216/S Petitions dismissed.