MUHAMMAD ALI Versus State
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner for murderous assault, Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-Udw, and house trespass, resulting in concurrent sentences and fine, which were upheld by the High Court. The core legal question involved the credibility of the victim's identification of the assailant during a winter morning acid attack and the reliability of the prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a proper appraisal of evidence, noting that the victim's immediate recognition of the neighbor-petitioner was reliable and corroborated by cross-examination and supporting witnesses. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentences.
- Whether the identification of an assailant by the victim in the early morning hours can be considered reliable despite adverse weather conditions?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts be interfered with by the Supreme Court when based on proper appraisal of evidence?
- Whether the testimony of an injured prosecutrix is sufficient to maintain a conviction for violent assault without independent corroboration?
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J .---Mst. Shakila Rafique (PW-3) was still asleep in her room alongside her daughter; it was a winter morning and at about 5/5:15 a.m., she was awakened by an entry in the room, assuming that of her husband; all of a sudden, she screamed after feeling some liquid spilling over her face, she sprang up to identify the appellant in the room; the family was attracted including her husband Muhammad Rafique (PW-1); her face was washed and thereafter rushed to Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences. Dr. Farrukh Kamal (PW-5) attended the prosecutrix with burn injuries. According to the complainant, the petitioner resided in the neighbourhood with a questionable conduct to the annoyance of the residents, on whose behalf, he had moved an application to the Inspector General of Police. It is alleged that in the above backdrop, he selected complainant's wife as a target to avenge the insult. Upon indictment, the petitioner claimed trial, culminating into his conviction on the counts of murderous assault as well as Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-Udw, he was sentenced to 10-years rigorous imprisonment along with payment of fine as well as Arsh; he was additionally convicted for house trespass and sentenced to 7-years' RI with fine; benefit under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 alongside concurrent commutation; his appeal failed in the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 20-11-2017, vires whereof are being assailed on the ground that the very genesis of the incident is shrouded into mystery and that it is far from being clear as to how the petitioner made his way into the bedchamber without being noticed by the inmates so as to conveniently carry out the assault; it is next argued that in a chilled winter morning much before the sun rise, it was simply not possible for the prosecutrix to keep her face out of the quilt or blanket in temperature, presumably subzero; according to the learned counsel, no blanket or quilt was taken into possession; question of identity of the assailant has also been argued at inordinate lengths with a reference to complainant's large clan, comprising three wives with siblings, to insinuate behind the scene family fissures. Contrarily, the learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned judgment.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Most of the questions, though raised ingeniously, find their answers in the cross-examination itself. It is a common ground that petitioner lived in the neighbourhood with a joint terrace; to a question asked by no other than the cross-examiner himself, prosecutrix explained, malady of hyper tension as a reason for not covering her face with the quilt. Petitioner, being a next door resident, taking to the heels after surprising the family, that attempted to apprehend him, the question of his identity cannot be viewed with suspicion. Prosecutrix being in her prime youth, horrendously mutilated, is certainly not expected to swap the petitioner with the real offender; she has been straightforward and confidence inspiring in her deposition, joined by other family members to firmly stand in her support to rule out conspiracy theories. In the face of formidable evidence, exclusively revolving around his culpability, plea taken by the petitioner is beside the point; statements of the defence witnesses are equally inconsequential. Courts below have rightly appraised prosecution evidence while being inconsonance with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice and upon our own independent analysis, we have not been able to take a view different than concurrent conclusions, squarely structured within the remit of law. Jail Petition fails. Dismissed.
MWA/M-54/SC Petition dismissed.