RAMZAN AND Another vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal and upheld their convictions and sentences for the murder of Shamsuddin and the attempted murder of Qamaruddin. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly appreciated the ocular testimony and corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including the testimony of several eyewitnesses and the recovery of stolen property (a revolver, wrist-watch, and rings) from the petitioners. The Court held that the High Court properly appreciated the evidence and was justified in relying on the ocular testimony, which was further corroborated by the possession of stolen items. The principle laid down is that the conviction of an accused in a murder case is sustainable when based on credible ocular testimony that is corroborated by independent evidence, such as the recovery of stolen property linked to the deceased, thereby establishing the accused's participation in the crime.
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular testimony corroborated by the recovery of stolen property from the accused?
- Is the High Court's appreciation of ocular evidence subject to interference by the Supreme Court if the evidence is found to be credible?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioners, along with one Hasoo alias Ghulam Hussain, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, for offences under section 1 8/302 read with sections 149, 409/149 and 307/149, P. P. C. For the murder of deceased Shamsuddin and attempted murder of P. W. Qamaruddin. They were sentenced to death, 5 years, 2 years and one year's R. I.
2. Respectively. The petitioners and co-accused Hasoo filed an appeal in the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed and the appeal of co-accused Hasoo alias Ghulam Hussain, was accepted, by judgment dated the 20th June 1973. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said judgment.
3. The prosecution case is that deceased Shamsuddin, who was the brother of the complainant, was posted as Tapedar at Tapo Pathra, Taluka Naro. He had come to home on Idd day. On the 27th February 1969, at about noon time, Shamsuddm went to pay Idd greetings to Rais Ahmad Bux Tago in his village on his scooter. The complainant also went on his cycle to pay Idd greetings to Rais Ahmad Bux Tago. On the way about 1-- miles from his village. He saw his deceased brother Shamsuddin return--ing from there and while he was 1 50 paces away, he saw Ghulam Hussain Khaskheli, Hasoo alias Ghulam Hussain, Bachal, Ramzan and Manik coming in front of him. Ghulam Hussain Khaskbeli was armed with a double-barrel gun, Hasoo had a pistol and other three carried hatchets. Ghulam Hussain Khaskheli fired two shots at the deceased who fell down from the scooter. Those armed with hatchets gave him hatchet blows. In the meantime, Qamruddin challenged them whereupon, Hasoo fired his pistol at him but the shot went astray and he thereupon raised cries of "murder, murder" which attracted passersby namely, Ghulam Mustafa, Khairu Panwar and Ramzan Bhutto. They also chal--lenged the accused upon which Ghulam Hussain Khaskheli fired three shots at them. The shots, however, went astray.
4. The petitioner then removed the licensed revolver and belt with bullets of the deceased, two golden rings from his hand and one wrist watch which he was wearing. Co-accused Hasoo and Bachal thereafter threw his body into the watercourse while the petitioners threw his scooter into it.
5. They then left raising slogans.
6. The prosecution case rests on the ocular testimony of Qamr--uddin, Ghulam Mustafa, Ramzan and Khair Muhammad, and corroborative evidence of Rais Ahmad Bux Tago and the recovery of deceased's revolver from petitioner Ramzan and wrist-.Watch and rings from petitioner Manik. It may be mentioned that Qamruddin is the brother of the deceased. Ramzan and Khair Muhammad are not related to the complainant party. Ghularn Mustafa has only caste relationship.
7. We have gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and are satisfied that the High Court has properly appreciated their evidence and has rightly convicted the petitioners on their evidence. The learned Judges of the High Court were perfectly justified in accepting the ocular testimony of the pro--secution witnesses. There is assurance of petitioner's participation in the crime as they were found in possession of the stolen property of the deceased.
8. We have carefully considered all the aspects of the case and are of the opinion that the petitioners have been rightly convicted for the murder of Shamsuddin deceased. There is no force in the petition. The petition is dismissed.