MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR Versus THE STATE
The petitioner, Muhammad Zulfiqar, was convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, for offences under sections 302(b), 365, 392, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence, which was subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court. The conviction relied primarily on 'last-seen' evidence and the recovery of articles belonging to the deceased, which occurred fifteen days after the incident at the petitioner's pointation. Notably, the trial court had acquitted the petitioner's co-accused based on contradictory prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the 'last-seen' evidence and the delayed recovery of articles were legally sufficient to establish guilt, particularly given that the same prosecution evidence was rejected regarding the co-accused. The Court also seeks to examine whether the principles of safe dispensation of criminal justice were adhered to by the lower courts in maintaining the conviction.
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on 'last-seen' evidence and delayed recovery when the same evidence was disbelieved regarding co-accused?
- Does the rejection of prosecution evidence against co-accused on grounds of contradiction necessitate a re-evaluation of the same evidence against the remaining accused?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑ ‑ Petitioner Muhammad Zulfiqar along with co‑accused namely Ehsan Ullah, Naveed, Bashir Hussain and Muhammad Ijaz, was tried by learned Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Faisalabad under sections 302/365/392/201/412/34, P.P.C. All above named co‑accused were acquitted vide judgment, dated 5‑6‑2000, but the petitioner was convicted under sections 302(b)/365/ 392/411, P.P.C. and various sentences, including death were awarded to him, which judgment in appeal was maintained by a learned Division Bench, Lahore High Court.
2. No body had seen the petitioner or any of above named co accused committing the murder of Syed Arshad Hussain Shah deceased. Both trial Court and High Court based the conviction on the basis of evidence "Last‑Seen" and recovery of certain articles including taxi/car, watch etc. belonging to the deceased. After about 15 days of occurrence at the alleged pointation of the petitioner, the recovery was affected.
3. Inter alia, leave to appeal is granted to consider:‑‑
(a) Whether, under the facts and circumstances, last‑seen evidence produced by the prosecution and recovery of aforesaid articles could be relied upon and the same were sufficient to establish .the guilt of the petitioner/appellant, especially when the evidence H of the prosecution in respect of above named co‑accused was disbelieved on the ground that `contradictory statements' were given in respect of them?
(b) Whether the principles of safe dispensation of criminal justice laid down by this Court in various cases were followed?
N.H.Q./M‑892/S Leave granted.