ALLAH YAR vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal by leave of the court arises from the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while his co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained in the face of significant discrepancies between the First Information Report, ocular testimony, and the medical evidence, coupled with delayed reporting and lack of corroboration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material improvements at the trial, major contradictions regarding the weapon attributed to the appellant versus the injuries found on the victims, and the absence of bloodstains on the recovered weapon. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, accepted the appeal, and set aside his conviction and sentence, thereby establishing the principle that irreconcilable discrepancies between ocular accounts and medical evidence, along with belated improvements, warrant an acquittal.
- Whether the benefit of the doubt can be extended to an accused when there is a material discrepancy between the First Information Report and the medical evidence?
- Does an improvement in ocular testimony at trial regarding the weapon used by the accused create sufficient doubt to warrant an acquittal?
- Can a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in the absence of independent corroborative evidence when the primary testimony is doubtful?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.---Allah Yar appellant, his brother Muhammad Yar and three others were charged under sections 307/149 and 148 P.P.C. And after trial convicted as such by the Magistrate 1st Class, Okara. All of them were sentenced to one year's R.I. Under section 148 P.P.C. And to four years' R.I. Under section 307 P.P.C. A fine of Rs, 1,000 was also imposed on each of them, out of which Rs, 4,000 was ordered to be paid to Sharif and Jehangir, the two injured witnesses. Their appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, on 13-8-1981. On revision to the High Court, Muhammad Yar and three others were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt but the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 307 P.P.C. Was maintained vide judgment dated 24-11-1981.
2. Leave was granted to re-appraise the evidence.
3. Evidence in this case has been gone through with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant. Argument of the learned counsel for the parties for and against the appeal has also been heard. We think, as the case stands, benefit of doubt can very well be extended to the appellant as well. The F.I.R. In this case has been lodged after a considerable delay and that too after the medical examination of the injured witnesses twice, yet we see that there is a great discrepancy between the F.I.R. And the medico-legal report. In the F.I.R. The appellant has been shown to be armed with a dang and the role attributed to him also was that he inflicted injuries on the two witnesses with a clan. The medico-legal reports, however, show that the two injured witnesses, namely, Sharif and Jehangir, have a number of injuries caused with sharp-edged weapon. Though at the trial the two injured witnesses and Hashim (P.W. 5) tried to bring their version of the occurrence in consonance with the medical report deposing that the appellant was armed with a hatchet and had inflicted blows with the same, but then it was too late in the day in that the damage had already been done. The version of the incident in the F.I.R. And at the trial has created a doubt in our mind about the veracity of the above-said witnesses. Further, the ocular evidence has not at all been supported by any other corroborative evidence in that only a dang has been recovered from the possession of the appellant and that too has no stains of blood on it.
' 3-A. The view that we take in the matter, therefore, is that the case of the prosecution is not free from doubt. The appeal is, therefore, accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the delict. The appellant is already on bail and the bail bonds are discharged.
Cited by 7 cases
- Muhammad Zubair Versus State 2026 YLR 1151
- Abdullah Mir Versus State 2025 PCrLJ 1292
- Abdul Wahid and others vs The State and others 2021 YLR 913
- Abdul Wadood and another vs The State 2021 YLR 560
- Ahmad Sultan vs State, etc 2020 P Cr. L J 1543, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1241, 2020 PHC 58
- Rozi Khan and others vs The State and others PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 720, 2020 MLD 580
- Sher Ali vs State 2017 PHC 850