AHMAD NAWAZ And Another vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the convictions of the petitioners for offences under sections 302 and 323, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of injured witnesses, who were related to the deceased, was sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of prior enmity. The Supreme Court held that the presence of the witnesses at the scene was established as they were injured during the occurrence and lived nearby. Despite their relationship to the deceased, the lack of enmity rendered their testimony credible. The Court further addressed the contention regarding the alleged change of the place of occurrence by the investigating officer, ruling that even if true, it did not compromise the credibility of the ocular evidence. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the trial court and High Court were justified in their findings. The judgment reinforces the principle that the testimony of injured witnesses, even if related to the deceased, is reliable when no enmity exists.
- Is the testimony of injured witnesses related to the deceased sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of enmity?
- Does an alleged discrepancy regarding the place of occurrence by the investigating officer automatically invalidate ocular testimony?
- Are the trial and appellate courts justified in relying on the testimony of injured witnesses who reside near the scene of the crime?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal to challenge their convictions of offences under sections 302 and 323, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Their convictions rest upon the ocular evidence provided by Muhammad Khan and Ahmad Yar. Not only these witnesses lived at a short distance from the place of occurrence but were also injured during the course of occurrence. Thus, their presence at the spot at the relevant time is not open to any serious doubt. It is true that they were closely related to the deceased but then there was no background of enmity between the parties. The trial Court and the High Court were in the circumstances justified in founding the conviction of the petitioners on their testimony.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the investigating officer had changed the place of occurrence and that in fact the occurrence had taken place near their own dera. Even if this assertion is true it will not in this case seriously compromise the creditability of the ocular testimony. There is no evidence that just before the attack upon him the deceased had given any provocation to the petitioners. They have already been given the benefit of the lesser sentence.
Thus, no case for interfering with the judgment of the High Court has been made out. Leave is accordingly refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.