NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus State
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Noor Muhammad, and the dismissal of the appeal of co-petitioner, Haq Nawaz, for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with others, attacked the complainant party, resulting in the death of the deceased. The trial court convicted the petitioners, though it acquitted other co-accused. The core legal questions concern whether the conviction of the petitioners can be sustained on the same evidence that led to the acquittal of their co-accused, and whether the prosecution's case is rendered doubtful due to the lack of forensic matching between recovered weapons and crime scene empties, alongside the absence of a proven motive connecting the petitioners to the crime. The Supreme Court, noting the lack of forensic evidence linking the recovered firearms to the crime and the failure to connect the petitioners to the alleged motive, granted leave to appeal to examine the sustainability of the convictions.
- Can the conviction of an accused be maintained on the same set of evidence that led to the acquittal of co-accused persons?
- Does the failure to match recovered firearms with crime scene empties create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to connect the accused to the alleged motive?
ORDER
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J .--- The petitioners-convicts were tried along with three others for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz; while acquitting Nazar Muhammad and Rab Nawaz, the trial Court convicted the remaining three. The appeal of the co-convict Ahmad Hayat was allowed. He too was acquitted whereas conviction and death sentence of petitioner Noor Muhammad was affirmed and the appeal of Haq Nawaz petitioner dismissed. The facts briefly stated are that as per prosecution story, on the fateful day at about 11-00 a.m., Haq Nawaz petitioner armed with .12 bore gun, Ahmad Hayat acquitted co-accused, armed with .30 bore pistol attacked the complainant party who were made to get down from the car. Haq' Nawaz accused fired which hit the wind screen of the car whereas the fire of Noor Muhammad hit Muhammad Nawaz on left side of his head. Ahmad Hayat fired which too hit Muhammad Nawaz on the left side of his chest. The motive alleged was that Ahmad Nawaz, father of Ahmad Hayat, had been murdered in which Muhammad Nawaz deceased, father of the complainant, was named as accused but he was acquitted.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave on the ground that Muhammad Nawaz deceased had only one pistol injury which proved that Haq Nawaz petitioner is not attributed any injury on .the person of the deceased or a P.W., that the pistol empty recovered from the spot did not match with the pistol recovered from petitioner Noor Muhammad and that both the petitioners are not connected with the motive part of the prosecution story.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has defended the impugned judgment. He admitted that pistol empty recovered from the spot did not match with the pistol, that the gun empties recovered also did not match with the gun recovered from Haq Nawaz petitioner and that none of the petitioners are directly connected with the motive part of the prosecution story.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are inclined to grant leave inter alia on the following grounds:--
(i) Having disbelieved the prosecution evidence qua three co-accused who stand acquitted, could the conviction of the petitioners be maintained on the same set of evidence.
(ii) Is the case of the petitioners not free from doubt as they are neither connected with the motive part of the prosecution nor any empty recovered from the spot was found to be wedded with fire-arms recovered from them?
N.H.Q./N-1/SC Leave granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- MOMIN KHAN and another vs STATE PLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 411
- MOMIN KHAN vs THE STATE---Responde 2009 MLD 122