Mst. HAMEEDA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL And 2 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the acquittal of the respondents by the Lahore High Court, which reversed their conviction and sentence for murder and murderous assault awarded by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the uncorroborated ocular testimony of an injured and interested witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a case involving longstanding enmity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court properly applied the rule of prudence requiring abundant caution and corroboration when evaluating the testimony of an interested witness amidst extreme enmity, where the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. The key principle laid down is that while an injured witness is naturally present, courts must apply caution and seek corroboration in the face of deep-seated enmity to avoid wrongful convictions.
- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of an injured yet interested witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction in cases of deep-seated enmity?
- Does the presence of longstanding enmity between parties require the application of the rule of prudence and abundant caution by appellate courts?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal order passed by the High Court when the appraisal of evidence is based on sound legal principles?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.-- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Mst. Hameeda Bibi petitioner against the acquittal of Muhammad Afzal and Abdul Sattar respondents. The aforesaid two respondents alongwith Muhammad Kalim and Muhammad Jamil were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge Rahimyar Khan under sections 302/307/34, PPC for the murder of Riazul Haq deceased and murderous assault on his brother Irshadul Haq PW, and vide judgment, dated 25th March, 1978 the present two respondents were sentenced to death plus fine under sections 302/34, PPC as well as to seven years' RI each plus fine under sections 307/34, PPC. Their two co-accused namely Muhammad Kalim and Muhammad Jamil were acquitted. The Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench in appeal vide judgment, dated 17th February, 1980 acquitted the two respondents. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. Briefly the facts are that the occurrence took place at 9 p.m. On 23rd March, 1976 in Chak No.78/P, Kot Sammaba District Rahimyar Khan. The F.I.R. Was lodged at 11 p.m. On the same day by Jafar Hussain P.W. Maternal uncle of the deceased at Police Station Kot Samaba. The present respondents were arrested on 25th March, 1976. No crime empty was picked up from the spot except lead of bullet but from both the petitioners were recovered revolvers and some crime empties in their chambers as well as bloodstained shirts of both the respondents. The bloodstained shirts evidence has not been relied upon by both the courts below. Similarly although crime empties in the chambers of the revolvers matched with the same they did not connect the respondents with the commission of the crime and, therefore, have no corroborative value. The prosecution case was mainly based on the ocular testimony of Irshadul Haq injured PW who is real brother of the deceased and was relied upon by the trial Court. Jafar Hussain PW had been disbelieved. According to the medical evidence the deceased had two firearm injuries on the chest and each of them was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Irshadul Haq PW had three firearm wounds on the left arm. These were black and burnt. The motive is longstanding enmity between the parties due to a dispute regarding agricultural land. According to the prosecution version the deceased was sitting in his Baithak and was talking to his brother Irshadul Haq PW and maternal uncle Jafar Hussain PW and the electric bulb was on. After some time the two respondents alongwith their companions entered into the Baithak. Both the respondents were armed with revolvers. The companions raised Lalkara that they should teach a lesson to the deceased and his brother. Thereupon, both the respondents fired one shot each at the deceased.
3. Then Muhammad Afzal respondent fired two shots at Irshadul Haq PW hitting at his left arm and Abdul Sattar respondent fired one shot at him hitting the same arm. The deceased died on the spot. The PWs tried to apprehend the respondents but they ran away alongwith their weapons.
4. The appellate Court in this case has acquitted the respondents because the evidence against them on the record was nothing except the uncorroborative testimony of the injured Irshadul Haq PW who was admittedly a highly interested witness. It was, therefore, considered highly unsafe to rely on his testimony in order to maintain the conviction and sentence awarded to the respondents by the trial Court because the possibility of their false involvement due to enmity and suspicion could not be ruled out.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that in such cases where there is extreme enmity between the parties then if the testimony of even an injured interested witness which is uncorroborated and is to be considered as unreliable then in such circumstances there would be never any conviction and sentence. This argument is without any force because wherever there is background of enmity between the parties the principle to be applied in such circumstances is of abundant caution. It is only a rule of prudence. So far as the present case is concerned in our considered view the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench have properly applied the aforesaid principle and consequently no ground is made out for interference. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.