GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD ARIF And Other
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code, alongside a connected petition by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question involves the reliability of related eye-witness testimony and material discrepancies regarding whether relatives accompanied the deceased to the hospital as opposed to the police bringing the body. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding discrepancies in the medical evidence vis-a-vis the First Information Report and the interested nature of the eye-witnesses necessitate a thorough re-appraisal of the evidence. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted in both the convict's petition and the complainant's enhancement petition. The key principle laid down is that where material contradictions exist between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding crucial facts like the presence of relatives at the hospital, a re-appraisal of evidence is warranted to determine safe administration of criminal justice.
- Whether material discrepancies between the First Information Report and medical evidence warrant a re-appraisal of evidence in a murder case?
- Can the testimony of close relatives be safely relied upon without corroboration when contradictions exist regarding the transportation of the deceased to the hospital?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings of conviction in a criminal matter?
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--This order will dispose of Cr. P.S.L.A. No. 41 of 1982 and Cr. P .S.L.A. No. 59 of 1982 which arise out of the same order of the learned Lahore High Court, dated 11-1-1982.
The first petition seeks leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners 1 and 3 (petitioner No.2 having since died) and the second petition has been made by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence. The petitioners alongwith deceased petitioner Muhammad Shafi and three others, namely, Khushi Muhammad, Pir Bakhsh and Atta Muhammad (acquitted by the trial Court) were charged of the offence of murder of one Muhammad Din. On trial they were found guilty and were convicted and sentenced to death with fine of Rs.5,000. The petitioners appeal against their conviction failed before the High Court but the sentence of death was converted to life imprisonment and the fine was enhanced to Rs.30,000 each.
3. The prosecution examined in all five witnesses in support of the case. The said eye-witnesses were Ghulam Muhammad complainant and father of the deceased, Shah Muhammad and Ghulam Rasool brothers of the deceased and Ahmad Din uncle of the deceased. Another witness Sadiq was declared hostile. The death was caused to the deceased as a result of Sota blows.
4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that apart from the fact that the eye- witnesses were inter-related there was another discrepancy of material nature which had gone unnoticed in the case. The learned counsel referred to the F.I.R. According to which the deceased was taken to the hospital by the complainant alongwith other witnesses. He then invited our attention to the statement of Dr. Capt. Khurshid Ahmad Rana, Medical Officer (P.W.8) who in his cross-examination stated that the body was brought to the hospital by Chishtian police and further stated that no relative of the deceased was present when he had been so brought.
5. The argument of the learned counsel in short was that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case and the testimony of the close relatives was not trustworthy. Lastly, it was contended that the case of three acquitted accused was not different from that of the petitioners.
6. In view of the above contentions, re-appraisal of evidence seems necessary and leave is accordingly granted. Since we have granted leave in this matter, we would grant leave in the other connected petition as well.