MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And Others vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with a deceased co-accused, murdered the victim due to a motive involving illicit relations with the co-accused's daughter. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses, particularly an alleged independent witness, was sufficient to sustain the conviction, or whether the testimony suffered from such variations and improbabilities as to render it unreliable. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact reached by the lower courts did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Court rejected the contention that the witnesses were interested, finding that the alleged connection of the independent witness to the complainant was too remote to suggest false implication. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for re-appraisal of evidence and dismissed the petition, affirming that minor variations in testimony do not undermine the substantive reliability of eyewitness accounts in murder cases.
- Does the presence of minor variations and improbabilities in the testimony of an eyewitness necessarily render their evidence unreliable?
- Can a witness be considered 'interested' due to a remote or old connection with the complainant party?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in a criminal appeal?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 20th July, 1981, of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' appeal against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment as also fine in a murder case, was dismissed.
2. The petitioners and Ghulam Elahi their deceased co-accused it was the prosecution case, murdered Munawar Hussain their co-villager for the motive that the latter had illicit connection with the daughter of said Ghulam Elahi accused. They waylaid the deceased, Muhammad Ashraf and Tariq petitioners gave blows to the deceased with sharp-edged weapons while their co- accused Ghulam Elahi had exhorted them to commit the crime. The occurrence was witnessed by Fazal Elahi P.W. a maternal-uncle of the deceased and Muhammad Elahi P.W. Who is not related to the parties and appears to be an independent witness. In addition to the motive and ocular evidence, the recovery of a knife from Muhammad Ashraf was sought to be proved against him at the trial but it has not been relied upon.
3. The occurrence is of day time and the F.I.R was very prompt. The names of the accused are mentioned in the F.I.R. One of the eye-witnesses is an independent person. There was no such enmity as to suggest false implication of either of the petitioners by Muhammad Elahi P.W.
4. Learned counsel has, however, contended that none of the two eye-witnesses are independent nor their testimony inspires confidence. He pointed out certain variations and improbabilities in the testimony of Muhammad Elahi P.W. And also brought to our notice that although the witness was not in reality hostile, an attempt was made to declare him as such on insufficient grounds.
5. We do not accept the contention of the learned counsel that both the witnesses in this case were interested. The alleged connection of Muhammad Elahi P.W. With the complainant side is too old and too remote to impel him to falsely implicate the petitioners in a case of murder. By and large he stood the test of cross-examination. The so-called variations and improbabilities are on minor points and do not affect the substantive part of his testimony.
6. Learned counsel has not been able to make out a case for re-appraisal of evidence by this Court.
7. The findings of fact reached) by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
8. This petition accordingly has no force and is dismissed.