SAFDAR ALI WAHLA And Another vs The STATE
This matter concerns two criminal petitions for special leave to appeal filed by Safdar Ali Wahla and Abdul Majid against a High Court judgment that upheld their convictions. The petitioners challenged their conviction under Section 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing that the allegations did not satisfy the legal requirements because no force was used against the complainant. Additionally, the petitioners contended that the prosecution's case relied solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, Saeeduddin (P.W. 3), which they argued was insufficient for conviction. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. Regarding the first argument, the Court held that the contention was misconceived when read in light of the definition of assault provided in Section 351 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Regarding the second argument, the Court found no material defects in the complainant's testimony that would necessitate independent corroboration or warrant interference with the conviction. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions, affirming the lower court's judgment.
- Does the definition of assault in Section 351 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 support a conviction under Section 353 where the use of force is contested?
- Can a conviction be maintained solely on the testimony of a complainant without independent corroboration?
- Section 351, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J--This order will dispose of Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 192/85 and Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 223/85, filed by Safdar Ali Wahla and Abdul Majid, respectively, against the same judgment of the High Court, dismissing their criminal appeals.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length and have also gone through the impugned judgment.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that their convictions under section 353, P.P.C. Are not maintainable as the allegations against them in that respect do not fall within the four corners of the said section, because no force is alleged to have been used by the accused/ petitioners' against the complainant.
After having considered we find that the contention is misconceived in view of the definition of assault in section 351, P.P C.
4. It was next contended that the prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of the complainant (Saeeduddin, P.W. 3) which cannot be relied upon for maintaining petitioners conviction without any independent corroboration.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have, however, not been able to point out any material defect in the testimony of the said witness which would induce us to accept the aforementioned contention.
Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- LIAQAT HUSSAIN SHAH and another vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 1985