ANWAR Versus STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mukhtar Ahmed. The trial court had convicted the petitioners while acquitting four co-accused, noting that the latter were falsely implicated. The core legal question is whether the petitioners' conviction can be sustained given the trial court's findings regarding the falsity of the prosecution's case against the co-accused and the reliability of the corroborative evidence. Specifically, the petitioners challenge the reliance on forensic evidence concerning firearm empties, arguing that the recovery process was compromised by contradictory testimony from the complainant regarding the origin of the empties and the police officer's handling of the weapons. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether, in the interest of the safe administration of criminal justice, the conviction remains legally sound in light of these evidentiary discrepancies and the lack of reliable corroboration.
- Whether a conviction can be safely maintained when the trial court has found that co-accused were falsely implicated?
- Does contradictory testimony regarding the recovery of firearm empties invalidate the forensic expert's report as corroborative evidence?
- Is it safe to convict an accused based on firearm evidence when the police have handled the weapons in a manner that casts doubt on the integrity of the recovery?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
FAZAL KARIM, J.--- The petitioners Anwar and Khizar Hayat, alongwith four others named Munir Ahmad, Shahbaz alias Baza, Sikander and Muhammad Hayat, were tried for the murder of Mukhtar Ahmed, which took place at about 10-00 a.m. on 3-3-1991. The learned trial Judge convicted the petitioners under section 302 read with 34 of the P.P.C., and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine each. The remaining four accused persons, of whom three had, according to the prosecution, actively participated in the commission of the crime and one had abetted the offence, were acquitted. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the High Court's impugned judgment dated 20-12-1995 and so was the complainant's revision petition, praying that the petitioners be sentenced to death.
2. The prosecution case was that the complainant alongwith Muhammad Hayat, Muhammad Mumtaz and Lala was working in their field and Mukhtar Ahmad deceased, a brother of the complainant, was ploughing another field at a distance of six Kanals from them when the accused persons, Baza. Sikandar. Anwar, Khizar Hayat armed with guns and Munir Ahmed empty-handed appeared. Munir Ahmad caught hold of Mukhtar Ahmad deceased. He was forcibly lifted to a distance of five Karams where Anwar petitioner fired hitting him in his chest, Baza, Sikander, Anwar and Khizar Hayat also fired shots also hitting Mukhtar Ahmad.
3. The first information report was purportedly recorded at 12-30 p.m. on 3-3-1991 Learned counsel for the petitioners referred us to the findings of the learned trial Court to point out that in the opinion of the learned trial Judge, the F.I.R. had not been lodged at 12-30 P.M. ,as shown therein; that the deceased man had many enemies; that the accused persons Munir Ahmad, Sikander, Baza and Khizar Hayat were in the vire of the learned trial Judge "falsely implicated" He argued that in view of these findings, it was not safe to convict the petitioners without corroboration. Against the petitioners what was used as corroborative evidence was the fact that the empties taken into possession from the place; of occurrence were found by the Fire-arm Expert to have been fired from the petitioner's guns. In this behalf learned counsel for the petitioner referred us to the memo of recovery which showed that the empties were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from the spot of occurrence but this, fact was contradicted by Manzoor complainant (P.W.9), who said that the empties had been produced before the Investigating Officer either by Fateh Muhammad or Sadra. He admitted also that after the accused had produced the guns, the Thanedar had fired from those guns to check if the same were in working order". These admissions, so argued the learned counsel, made the recovery of the empties highly doubtful and, therefore, the expert's report could not serve as corroboration.
4. Leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to consider these contentions and to examine whether it is in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice to convict the petitioners.
H.B.T./A-23/S Leave granted.