MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Others vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' criminal appeal and maintained their convictions and sentences of life imprisonment for offences under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The case arose from an incident on 28-7-1980 in District Lahore, resulting in the death of one Zulfikar and injuries to Abdul Khaliq. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony, including that of the injured witness, Abdul Khaliq, who was found to be disinterested and impartial. The trial court and the High Court had both accepted the prosecution's evidence, noting the deceased sustained eighteen injuries, including a firearm injury. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the evidence was not worthy of reliance and had not been properly appreciated. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that there was no infraction of any rule or principle of law governing the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. Consequently, the Court found no substance in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the lower courts' findings.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the appreciation of evidence by lower courts when no rule or principle of law has been violated?
- Is the testimony of an injured witness who is neither related nor inimical to the accused sufficient to sustain a conviction?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--Leave to appeal is sought by the petitioners herein from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26-5-1982 whereby their criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentences them to life imprisonment with fine under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. In the occurrence which had taken place in village Talwara District Lahore on 28-7-1980 one Zulfikar A.I was killed and Abdul Khaliq (P.W.8) was injured. The prosecution examined three eye- witnesses of which Abdul Khaliq was admittedly neither related nor was found to be in any manner inimical to the petitioners /accused. The deceased had suffered as many as 18 injuries on his person out of which injury No: 1 was caused by fire-arm and the rest by sharp-edged weapon. The ocular testimony furnished by the prosecution witnesses was believed by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.
3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel before us was that the evidence was notworthy of reliance and was not properly appreciated. This argument turns only on the question of appreciation of evidence.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record we are satisfied that there has been no infraction of any rule or principle of law governing appreciation of evidence in the criminal cases.
We, therefore, find no substance in the petition, which is dismissed.