MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for the murder of the deceased under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were sentenced to death and life imprisonment respectively for causing fatal injuries to the deceased using a dagger and a hatchet. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the lower courts failed to properly appreciate the evidence, specifically regarding alleged contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and material discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses concerning the timing and circumstances of the petitioners' arrest. The Supreme Court, finding that the petitioners' contentions regarding these evidentiary infirmities and discrepancies required deeper judicial scrutiny, granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that where material discrepancies in prosecution evidence—such as conflicting accounts of the arrest of the accused and potential suppression of initial medical reports—are raised, the appellate court must examine the record to ensure the conviction is based on reliable and consistent evidence.
- Does a significant discrepancy between the testimony of prosecution witnesses and the investigating officer regarding the date of arrest warrant a re-examination of the conviction?
- Is leave to appeal justified when there are allegations of material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence that were not adequately addressed by the lower courts?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MUHAMMAD RAF10 TARAR, J .‑‑‑Muhammad Arshad and Shahbaz petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 4‑4‑1993 whereby their appeals against their convictions under section 302/34, P.P.C. carrying death sentence with a fine of Rs.20,000 for the former and imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.15,000 for the latter, were dismissed.
2. The petitioners were tried on the allegation that on 18‑5‑1988 at 10‑30 a.m. while armed with a dagger and hatchet they caused injuries to Abdur Rashid deceased in furtherance of their common intention as a result of which he died on the following day i.e. 19‑5‑1988.
3. The prosecution version as per F.I.R. which was lodged by the deceased was that on 18‑5‑1988 at about 10‑30 a.m. Abdur Rashid deceased and his brother Abdul Aziz were present at Adda Mananwala when Arshad armed with a Khanjar and his relative Shahbaz armed with hatchet came there raising Lalkaras and simultaneously caused injuries with their weapons on various parts of his body including left and right buttocks, left fore‑arm, left hand and left shoulder.
4. At the trial Jan Muhammad and Abdul Aziz P.Ws. supported the version contained in the F.I.R.
5. The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge, denied the prosecution allegation against them and maintained that ‑ they were falsely implicated due to suspicion.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on the record in its true perspective. He maintained that the injured was firstly examined at a local dispensary and when received in the Emergency Ward he had stitched wounds but the report of his first medical examination was not produced. He further submits that the ocular evidence is contradicted by the medical evidence and suffers from material discrepancies. He pointed out that according to Abdul Aziz P.W., Shahbaz accused was apprehended by the police at the spot while Arshad had succeeded in running away but the Investigating Officer had' stated that he arrested both the accused on 24‑5‑1988 i.e. six days after the occurrence, but this material discrepancy and other inherent infirmities were not taken notice of. The submissions made by the learned counsel require examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted.
N.H.Q/M‑2041/S Leave granted.