BASHIR AHMAD vs The STATE
This matter arose from a jail petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, who was convicted of murder by the Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to death, a sentence subsequently reduced to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court. The petition was time-barred by 159 days. The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether it was safe to sustain the conviction based solely on ocular evidence where the eye-witnesses had falsely implicated at least three co-accused who were acquitted, and where there was no recovery and the medical evidence cast substantial doubt on the prosecution case. The Supreme Court held that where eye-witnesses have falsely implicated innocent persons, their tainted testimony requires sufficient corroboration. The Court observed that motive alone, being a double-edged weapon due to mutual hostility, could not suffice as corroboration, and the rejection of a plea of self-defence did not relieve the prosecution from corroborating tainted ocular testimony. Consequently, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and granted leave to appeal.
- Whether it is safe to sustain a conviction based solely on the uncorroborated ocular evidence of eye-witnesses who have falsely implicated several innocent co-accused?
- Can evidence of motive serve as sufficient corroboration for tainted ocular evidence where mutual hostility makes motive a double-edged weapon?
- Does the falsity or rejection of an accused's plea of self-defence relieve the court from the requirement of seeking independent corroboration for tainted ocular evidence?
1. OPINION DORAB PATEL, J.--The petitioner was convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, for murdering one Muhammad Ashraf, and sentenced to death. He challenged his conviction in an appeal in the Lahore High Court, which was heard with the reference from the Sessions Court. The Lahore High Court upheld the petitioner's conviction, but rejected the reference and reduced the sentence against him to life imprisonment. Hence this jail petition for leave, which is the-barred by 159 days.
2. The most significant feature of this case is that the petitioner was tried with four other accused at least three of whom were implicated by all the eye-witnesses. And, as the prosecution case rested solely on the ocular evidence, the contention of the petitioner in the High Court was that the prosecution had failed to prove the petitioner's guilt, because the prosecution case was based solely on the evidence of witnesses, who had falsely implicated at least three innocent persons.
3. The Sessions Court appears to have been of the view that the ocular evidence was reliable but this finding is inconsistent with the fact that it acquitted all the other accused, therefore, the question for determination before the High Court was whether the ocular evidence was corroborated by other evidence.
4. It would appear that the prosecution had relied on evidence of motive to corroborate the ocular evidence, but motive in this case was clearly a double-edged weapon, because of the mutual hostility between the parties. And, indeed, the petitioner did not deny the hostility but said that the party of the complainant had attacked him and the co-accused, and that one of the co-accused, had in self-defence, fired the shot, which killed Muhammad Sharif.
5. In these circumstances, as there were no recoveries, whatever, the 'question before the High Court was whether it was safe to uphold a conviction based solely on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, who had falsely implicated at least three innocent persons. But although the learned Judges have themselves stated that this was the question for consideration before them, they have not given any reasons for their conclusion that it would be safe to uphold a conviction based on such tainted evidence. It is true that the learned Judges have rejected the petitioner's plea of self-defence and perhaps rightly so, but even if the plea of self-defence was false, this was not relevant to the question whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses against the petitioner was corroborated by evidence sufficient to justify placing reliance on the ocular evidence.
6. Additionally, the learned Judges of the High Court have themselves observed that the medical evidence "casts some shadow on the prosecution evidence." If I may say so, the medical evidence casts a considerable shadow on the evidence of witnesses, who had deliberately and falsely implicated several innocent persons. In these circumstances it seems to me that leave must be granted and I would, therefore, condone the delay.
7. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.-- I agree.