MUHAMMAD HAQ And Another vs The STATE
This jail petition was filed by two real brothers, Muhammad Suleman and Muhammad Haq, against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, interested witnesses, and the sustainability of conviction where several co-accused were acquitted and recoveries were disbelieved. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that a re-appraisal of the evidence was justified given that out of nine initially charged individuals seven were acquitted, weapon recoveries were discarded, and the eye-witnesses were close relatives of the deceased. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal may be granted for a comprehensive re-appraisal of evidence when the prosecution relies on closely related witnesses, recoveries are disbelieved, and a vast majority of the co-accused have secured acquittals.
- Whether re-appraisal of evidence is justified when multiple co-accused are acquitted and eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased?
- Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of related eye-witnesses when weapon recoveries are disbelieved?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
OPINION S.A. NUSRAT, J.--This Jail Petition has been filed by two real brothers Muhammad Suleman and Muhammad Haq against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dismissing their appeal against the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jehlum by order, dated 5-9-1981.
2. I have gone through the impugned judgment of the trial Court as well as the learned High Court.
3. In the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Nazir Ahmed, as many as 9 persons were charged with the commission of the offence. The trial Court convicted the two petitioners and one Muhammad Qasim under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and other six were acquitted. Muhammad Qasim was acquitted by the High Court.
4. The eye-witness account was furnished by Nazir Ahmad' complainant, brother of the deceased and another close relation Abdul Hakim son of real sister of the deceased. The evidence regarding recovery of weapons allegedly used by the accused was ruled out of consideration. The motive as well as the evidence of the two eye-witnesses was believed. The defence pointed out that some improvements were made at the trial by the witnesses and their testimony was in conflict with the medical report. This contention was, however, overruled. In view of the fact that initially 9 persons were charged with the commission of the offence out of whom 7 have been acquitted, recoveries were disbelieved and the two eye-witnesses are close relations of the deceased, re-appraisal of evidence seems justified. I, would, therefore, grant leave. As the petition is from jail the limitation of 34 days is liable to be condoned.
Zaffar Hussain Mirza, J.--I agree that this is a fit case for leave.
ORDER OF THE COURT
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs DEPUTY DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN 2006 PLC (C.S.) 750
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs DEPUTY DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN 2006 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 85