MUHAMMAD SHAHZADA alias SHADA and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from two connected petitions for leave to appeal filed by convicts challenging their convictions and sentences for murder. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence supporting the conviction, specifically whether the testimony of an approver requires independent corroboration in material particulars and the credibility of a corroboratory witness whose statement was recorded twelve days after the occurrence without a prior report to the investigating authorities. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the evidence warrants a reappraisal in the interest of justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to both convicts, establishing the principle that where the reliability of corroboratory testimony and approver evidence is open to serious doubt regarding timeliness and natural conduct, the case merits a thorough re-examination of the evidence through an appeal.
- Can a criminal conviction rest solely on the testimony of an approver without independent corroboration in material particulars?
- Whether the delay of twelve days in recording the statement of a crucial corroboratory witness affects the reliability of such evidence?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the evidence in a murder case requires reappraisal in the interest of justice?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--These are two connected petitions by the convicts who seek leave to appeal against their convictions and sentences.
2. ' It was alleged that deceased Shuja Ullah had promised to send Sohail and Muhammad Bashir Mir abroad for employment and extorted from them Rs,4,000 each about two years before the occurrence, but did not keep his promise upon which they demanded the return of their money but the deceased put them off.
3. ' The deceased had disappeared in the morning of 25th December, 1980, alongwith Muhammad Bashir Mir from his house and was killed in front of House No,274-F, Mohallah Nishtarabad in the city of Rawalpindi late in the evening.
4. ' The report of the incident was lodged by Salimullah Khan a brother of the deceased at Police Station C-Division, Rawalpindi at 01.45 hours on 26th of December, 1980. The petitioners were convicted for murder on the evidence of Muhammad Bashir Mir which was said to have been corroborated by that of Pir Faqir Ali who was examined 12 days after the incident on his name having been disclosed by Muhammad Bashir Mir, the approver.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the conviction could not rest on the evidence of Muhammad Bashir Mir without independent corroboration in material particulars and if the testimony of Pir Faqir Ali is to be relied on as a piece of corroboratory evidence then it is doubtful whether he is a realiable witness as his statement was recorded 12 days after the occurrence without the witness having himself reported the incident to the Investigating Officer if he was an eye-witness.
6. ' Having examined the evidence and the judgment, we are of the view that the evidence requires reappraisal in the interest of justice.
7. ' Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to both the convicts.