ALI SHAN vs The STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of his first cousin, which arose from a trivial dispute regarding plants sown near a wall. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Mst. Sufaidan, when other witnesses were disbelieved or abandoned. The Supreme Court held that the petition had no merit and dismissed it, ruling that the testimony of the sole eyewitness was credible and that the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts suffered from no legal infirmity or violation of appraisal principles. The key principle laid down is that a criminal conviction can lawfully rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness if found credible and reliable by the courts of fact.
- Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the concurrent appreciation of evidence by lower courts in the absence of a violation of appraisal principles?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C J.-The petitioner herein stands convicted for the murder of Altaf Hussain, his first cousin, on a trivial dispute such as his refusal to remove the plants sown alongwith wall as their watering was likely to damage the wall of the house of the deceased. The parties lived in houses which were contiguous, and the incident took place in broad daylight in a street outside the courtyard of the house of Mst. Sufaidan Bibi, the complainant, and it was alleged that the petitioner had fired at the deceased killing him at the spot at Chhoti Deeger Vella on 12th of June, 1979, as a sequel to this dispute. The F. I. R. Was promptly lodged at 7.00 p.m. In the F. I. R. Two persons were mentioned having witnessed the incident. They were Khan Nawab (P. W. 7) and Abdul Aziz Khan Nawab was disbelieved while Abdul Aziz was abandoned. The conviction now rests solely on the testimony of Mst. Sufaidan.
2. It is urged that because of some infirmities, the testimony of Mst. Sufaidan should not be accepted, but we see no reason to discard it as nothing has been brought to our notice as to why she could not have witnessed the incident. The' infirmities being inconsequential, the Courts below have held her to be a credible witness. The matter is one of appreciation of evidence, and there is no reason for us to differ from it in the absence of any violation of the principles of appraisal of evidence. It is a case of belie of a witness, and while giving weight to it, the Courts below have considered the pros and cons of the aspect of her evidence.
3. ' Accordingly, the petition has no merit and is dismissed.