HABIBULLAH and another Versus State
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction involving two petitioners, Habibullah and Umar Hayat, who were convicted for murder. The core legal issue concerns the reliability of eye-witness testimony in the presence of admitted blood enmity and the evidentiary value of forensic evidence, specifically crime empties recovered from the crime scene. The Supreme Court observed that because of the admitted enmity between the parties, the testimony of eye-witnesses required independent corroboration. The Court scrutinized the recovery of five crime empties, noting that the Investigating Officer admitted to receiving official directives (Robkars) from a D.S.P. to procure crime empties days after the occurrence, casting significant doubt on the timing and authenticity of the recovery. Consequently, the Court held that the forensic evidence could not serve as reliable corroboration. Finding the prosecution's case doubtful, the Court allowed the petition and granted leave to appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in cases of admitted enmity, eye-witness testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence, and evidence obtained through suspicious investigative procedures lacks credibility.
- Can eye-witness testimony be relied upon without corroboration in cases of admitted blood enmity?
- Does the timing of the recovery of crime empties, when inconsistent with police records, render forensic evidence unreliable?
- What is the evidentiary value of crime empties when the investigating officer admits to receiving instructions to procure them after the occurrence?
ORDER
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J. --- The two petitioners are first cousins inter se. A brother and a father" of the deceased of the present case had earlier murdered the father of Habibullah convict for which they were punished and had since come out of jail after suffering the sentences of imprisonment awarded to them. The enmity between the parties thus, stood admitted on record. Consequently, implicit reliance could not be placed on the testimony offered by the eye-witnesses unless the same was corroborated by some other pieces of evidence emanating from independent sources.
2. Five empties had been recovered from the spot and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory was that three of them had been fired from. the pistol allegedly recovered at the instance of Habibuliah convict while the remaining two "had been fired through the weapon allegedly recovered at the instance of Umar Hayat convict. This could have offered the corroboration required for the purpose but then it was admitted by the Investigating Officer, namely, Jahan Khan (P.W.12) that the Raga D.S.P. had sent him a Robkar on 10-8-2000 i.e. two days after the occurrence calling upon him to procure blood-stained earth and crime-empties and to take them into possession. it was further admitted by the said Investigating Officer that on 12-8-2000, he had received a further Robkar from the said D.S.P. asking for the compliance report with respect to his said earlier Robkar and that it was on 12-8-2000 that he submitted the report to the said D.S.P. verifying compliance thereof. It is submitted by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the convict that vi this view of the matter, the availability of the said five crime-empties at the place of occurrence and their alleged recovery on 8-8-2000, was a more than doubtful affair and that in the circumstances, no reliance could be placed on the said piece of evidence.
3. The receipt of the wound of entrance on the body of the deceased was a further circumstance which also warranted examination of the evidence available on record.
4. In view of "the said reasons and others, this petition is allowed and leave granted for the purpose.
M.B.A./H-12/SC Leave granted.