KHIZAR HAYAT vs The STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 27th May 1971, which dismissed his appeal and confirmed his death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Mir Ahmad. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular evidence, specifically the reliability of the sole eyewitness and the alleged improbabilities regarding his presence and conduct at the scene of the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the eyewitness was consistent and free of material discrepancies, and that the minor behavioural variations pointed out by the defence did not render his presence unnatural. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and death sentence. The key principle laid down is that minor alleged improbabilities or distances between eyewitnesses do not discredit a consistent and unimpeached ocular account of a crime unless material discrepancies are established.
- Whether the testimony of a sole eyewitness can form the basis of a murder conviction without corroboration?
- Does a minor distance between co-travelling eyewitnesses render their presence at the crime scene unnatural?
- Whether an exchange of hot words prior to the incident is sufficient to discredit subsequent consistent prosecution evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioner was convicted for the murder of Mir Ahmad on the 5th April 1970, at village Kula Dhand and sentenced to death under section 302, P. P. C.. By the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar. His appeal was also dismissed and his death sentence was confirmed by judgment dated the 27th May 1971, by a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court.
2. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment.
3. The prosecution case is that on the day of occurrence, Mohammad and his brother Mir Ahmad deceased were working in their tobacco field at degar qaza wela, when Khizar Hayat petitioner passed that way. Mohammad demanded from the petitioner the wages due to him for working for the petitioner as a labourer for 5/6 days. The petitioner refused to make any payment. There was exchange of hot words after which the petitioner went towards his village. Thereafter Mohammad and his brother finished their work and left for Kula Dhand. When they were passing on the pulla of the field of the petitioner, the deceased again demanded the balance of the wages due to Mohammad. The petitioner refused to pay the amount and opened fire at the deceased who was hit. Mohammad ran away out of fear to his village. He returned from the village after some people had collected there and found that Mir Ahmad had died.
4. The conviction of the petitioner is based on the statement of Mohammad P. W. 9.
5. Mr. Masoom Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that there were certain inherent improbabilities in the presence of Mohammad at the place of occurrence. According to him it was unnatural that Mohammad should be at a distance of 80 feet from his brother Mir Ahmad deceased. He further contended that it was further unnatural that they would pass through the field of the petitioner after there was exchange of hot words. The contentions of the learned counsel have not impressed us. The statement of Mohammad is consistent and no discrepancy has been found in his statement. It may be that the deceased might have approached the petitioner for the payment of wages and in that he might have separated from his brother, to a distance of 80 feet. Similarly, the mere fact that there was exchange of hot words between the parties would' not lead them to leave the path from which their village was, approachable. No other point was urged. The petition is dismissed.