ABDUL REHMAN SHAH. vs KHURSHID AHMAD SHAH And Other
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents of the charge of murder of an Advocate, Mubarik A.I Shah, who succumbed to twenty-four lathi injuries after making a dying declaration naming the respondents as his assailants. The trial court had convicted the respondents under sections 302/149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the High Court set aside the convictions, holding that the testimony of related eye-witnesses could not be relied upon due to strained relations and that the dying declaration was likely influenced by others. The core legal question concerns the proper appreciation of evidence, particularly the reliability and evidentiary value of a dying declaration and related eye-witness testimony in a criminal murder trial. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions regarding the credibility of the dying declaration and its sufficiency as a basis for conviction or corroboration carried weight, necessitating a reappraisal of the evidence. The key principle laid down is that a dying declaration made by an injured person who was in his senses, supported by adequate opportunity to identify his assailants, requires careful judicial evaluation and can serve as a basis for conviction or independent corroboration.
- Can a conviction be based solely on a dying declaration in a murder case?
- Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses should be discarded solely on the ground of strained relations between the parties?
- Does a dying declaration lose its credibility merely because the deceased had time to be influenced by other persons?
- When can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This petition by Abdur Rehman Shah is directed against the acquittal of Khurshid Ahmad Shah, Zahoor Ahmad Shah, Riaz Hussain Shah, Sadar Din Shah and Ghulam Sarwar, respondents, of the charge of murder.
2. Mubarik A.I Shah, the deceased in this case, was an Advocate. He was pursuing a previous case under section 307, P.P.C. Which had been got registered by Rashid Ahmad the brother of Abdur Rehman Shah complainant against some members of the accused party involving Mubarik A.I Shah (deceased). The accused-party had, therefore, a grudge against him. He was murdered by the respondents on the 25th of August, 1975, by inflicting numerous Lathi blows on him. During the autopsy he was found to have been given as many as 24 injuries, many of which were contusions.
Before succumbing to these injuries he made a dying declaration about the incident naming the respondents as his assailants.
3. In support of its case the prosecution relied on the testimony of the four eye-witnesses, i.e. Abdur Rehman P.W.7, Hakim P.W.8, Ghulam Qadir P.W.11 and Lai P.W.11.
4. The learned trial Court convicted all the accused-respondents and sentenced each of them under section 302/149, P.P.C. And sentenced them to imprisonment for life each and a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For one year. It also sentenced each one of them to one year R.I. Under section 148, P.P.C.
On appeal, however, the High Court acquitted all the five accused-respondents by its judgment, dated 28-4-1980.
Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present petition for leave to appeal,
5. We have heard the petitioner's (counsel and have also gone through the impugned judgment.
We notice that the learned High Court came to the conclusion that since relations between the parties were strained, the testimony of the eye-witnesses, who are related to the deceased, could not be believed. He held further that although, Mubarik A.I Shah did make a dying declaration but the same was not reliable because he had probably been influenced by other persons to give an incorrect version.
6. It was urged by the petitioner's counsel that the learned High Court has accepted the fact that Mubarik A.I Shah (deceased) had, in fact, made a dying declaration and that the doctor had certified that at that time he was in his senses. He submitted further that considering his (deceased's) status he is not expected to have been influenced by other persons to give a false story; that he was given numerous injuries by the assailants with Lathis during which he must have had enough time to recognize and identify his assailants and that he had no reason to name persons other than those who had inflicted injuries on him. He submitted that in the circumstances of this case respondents' conviction could be based solely on the dying declaration and in any case it could be used as an independent corroborating testimony of the eye-witnesses.
These contentions appear to have weight. Leave is, therefore, granted for reappraisal of the evidence on the record to ensure that the High Court has followed the well-settled principles of appreciation. Of evidence in criminal cases.
Bailable warrants should be issued against respondents Nos. 1 to 5, in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, returnable to the District Magistrate, Vehari.