MAKHMOOD HUSSAIN and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter involves two cross-petitions for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The first petition was filed by the accused-convicts challenging their conviction and sentence, while the second petition was filed by the complainant seeking an enhancement of the sentence awarded to the convicts. The primary legal contention raised by the defense was that the medical evidence, specifically the post-mortem report indicating blackening and charring of injuries, contradicted the ocular testimony which suggested firing from a long distance. Furthermore, it was argued that the ocular testimony, being of an interested nature, lacked sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court, finding that the points raised required deeper examination, granted leave to appeal in both petitions to consider the merits of the conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence. The Court thus set the stage for a full review of the evidence and the legal sufficiency of the conviction based on the alleged contradictions between medical and testimonial evidence.
- Does the presence of blackening and charring in a post-mortem report necessarily contradict ocular testimony of long-range firing?
- Is ocular testimony from an interested witness sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of independent corroborative evidence?
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Two separate petitions for leave to appeal have been filed by Makhmood Hussain and three others (accused-convicts) and Abdul Hanif (complainant).
2. ' In the former the convicts have challenged their conviction and sentence and the latter is for enhancement of sentence.
3. Raja Muhammad Anwar argued that the medical evidence contradicts the ocular version.
4. According to the post-mortem report, some of the injuries of the deceased had blackening and charring which suggest close range firing whereas according to the eye-witnesses account the firing took place from a long distance.
5. ' It was further submitted that in the absence of any other reliable corroborative evidence the ocular testimony which is of interested type was not sufficient in law to sustain the conviction.
6. ' The points need examination.
7. ' Leave is accordingly granted.
8. ' Simultaneously we would also like to consider the request of Abdul Hanif petitioner and accordingly grant leave to appeal in that petition as well.