ABDURREHMAN Versus THE STATE
This jail petition is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal in a murder case. The petitioner was accused of murdering the deceased on December 5, 1979, at District Mansehra. The First Information Report was lodged by the widow of the deceased, who was informed by eyewitnesses at the scene. At the trial, the prosecution relied upon ocular testimony of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and a motive arising from previous litigation. The trial court and the High Court believed the testimony of the independent eyewitnesses, which was duly corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of a firearm from the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses, even without further corroboration, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Consequently, the court found no fit case for the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Is the ocular testimony of independent eyewitnesses sufficient by itself to sustain a murder conviction?
- Whether medical evidence and weapon recovery serve as sufficient corroboration in a murder trial?
- When will the Supreme Court refuse to grant leave to appeal in a criminal matter concurrent on facts?
Opinion of first Judge
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- This Jail Petition by Abdur Rehman petitioner is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dismissing his appeal in a murder case.
2.He was accused of having murdered Yaqub Khan on 5-12-1979 at 'Pisheen Qaza Vela,' in Banser Bazar, District Manshera. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Mst. Sabira, widow of the deceased. She reached the spot on hearing of the murder and was told by the witnesses present there that her husband had been killed by Abdur Rehaman. Of these witnesses she named Saif ur Rehman, Muhammad Sharif (P.W.7) and Muhammad Sattar (P.W.8). The accused was arrested and gun was recovered from him. The post-mortem examination revealed 3 pellete injuries on the person of the deceased with scorched margin.
3.At the trial the prosecution relied on the ocular testimony of Muhammad Sherif (P.W.7) and Muhammad Sattar (P.W.8). It also relied on the statement of Mst. Sabira (P.W.6), medical evidence and the evidence of motive.
4.The prosecution version given by the witnesses was that on the date and time of occurrence they heard report of firing arm. Therefore they rushed to the spot and saw that Abdul Rehman was armed with a Tamancha while Yaqub deceased was lying dead.
The motive for the murder is stated to be that there was enmity between the two over a litigation. The trial Court believed the testimony of the eye-witnesses who were independent witnesses. Their testimony is corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of the firearm from the petitioner.
I am of the view that even without corroboratory evidence of the eye-witnesses is sufficient to sustain the petitioner's conviction. I do not therefore consider it a fit case for grant of leave. I would consequently dismiss this petition.
Opinion of the Second Judge Abdul Kadir Shaikh, J. I respectfully agree.
Order of the Bench
The petition is dismissed.