DANA And 2 Others vs The STATE
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for murder and related offences. The core legal question was whether the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, who were involved in a prior criminal case against the petitioners, could be relied upon to sustain convictions, and whether the First Information Report was the result of deliberations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan refused leave to appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the credibility of the injured eye-witnesses were sound. The Court emphasized that the presence of injuries on the witnesses, combined with the circumstances of the occurrence, provided sufficient corroboration for their testimony. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the argument regarding delayed registration of the First Information Report, noting that the timely filing precluded the possibility of false implication through deliberation. The judgment affirms the principle that the testimony of injured witnesses, even if they have a prior conflict with the accused, carries significant weight and does not warrant re-appraisal by the Supreme Court when concurrent findings exist.
- Can the testimony of injured eye-witnesses be relied upon if they are involved in a prior criminal case against the accused?
- Does the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence when two lower courts have already reached concurrent findings?
- Does the timely registration of a First Information Report negate claims of false implication due to deliberations?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions from judgment, dated 24th March, 1980, of the Lahore High Court; whereby in a case of murder the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life of Dana, Ahmad and Gama petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 231 of 1980, and Bahadur, Manak, Ahmad and Amir petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 235 of 1980 were upheld. 3hera son of Ghulam who had been convicted by the trial Court was, however, acquitted. Earlier the trial Court had acquitted Shera son of Ahmad, Gama and Arif. The convict petitioners besides life imprisonment have been also sentenced to fine of Rs.2,000 each under section 302/149, P . P . C . , two years' R.I. Under section 148 , P . P . C . , 4 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000 each under section 307/149, P.P.C. They have also been ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2,000 each.
2. According to the prosecution the motive for the occurrence was that Samand deceased had beaten Dana petitioner 10/11 months prior to the occurrence in this case. A prosecution was launched against Samand for that occurrence, and he and his four brothers-in-law were facing trial in that case. It is stated that the accused persons came to the 'Behk' of Samand deceased and launched a concentrated attack on him as a result of which he died and four eye-witnesses received a large number of injuries. Karam Ali, Sardara, Falak Sher and Allah Yar, they are stated to be brothers-in-law of Samand. It appears that it was a retaliatory attack on the witnesses who were prosecuting the case against Dana and others. Dana, Gama and Bahadur petitioners were armed with guns while Ahmad son of Dana, Ahmad son of Mutalli, Amir and Manak were armed with Sotas. None of the accused is injured, while the complainant side including the deceased suffered more than 40 injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, have sought re-appraisal of the evidence on the ground that the eye-witnesses even though injured, were involved in the pending criminal case instituted at the instance of Samand, therefore, they should not have been relied upon; and that the case was registered against the petitioners after some deliberations.
4. It is true that the eye-witnesses had some interest in the prosecution of the petitioners. But as found by the Courts below they have been injured in the same occurrence. Their testimony is further supported by the facts and circumstances including the number of injuries and the number of the accused involved. Two Courts having believed the eye-witnesses regarding the petitioners, it is not a fit easel for re-appraisal of their evidence by this Court.
5. Regarding deliberations it is admitted by the learned counsel that the F.I.R. Keeping in view the relevant distance was not delayed. The petitioners' names appearing in the F.I.R., therefore, there is no danger of their having been falsely implicated due to any so-caller: deliberations.
6. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not consider it a fit case for re-appraisal of the evidence.
7. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused in both the petitions and they are dismissed.