BASHIR AHMED and 2 others vs THE STATE and 6 others
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal concerning a criminal case of culpable homicide involving multiple accused. The complainant party filed a petition against the acquittal or relief granted, while two convicts, Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Rafiq, sought leave to appeal against their conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carried a sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court heard the contentions of the parties at length. The Court held that Muhammad Rafiq's participation was established by strong independent corroboration of the eye-witness account, and accordingly refused leave to appeal to him. However, regarding Bashir Ahmad, the Court found that his case stood on a different footing due to contentions concerning the lack of acceptable corroboration and potential misreading of evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to Bashir Ahmad for re-examination of the evidence and directed that the complainant's petition be heard along with the ensuing appeal.
- Whether leave to appeal can be granted when contentions regarding the misreading of evidence and lack of corroboration require re-examination?
- Is independent corroboration of the eye-witness account sufficient to refuse leave to appeal to a convicted accused in a homicide case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions in a case of culpable homicide--one is by the complainant side (Cr. P. No,116 of 1988) and the other is by the accused/convicts side (Cr. P. No,125 of 1988).
2. ' Several accused were involved in this case. Only two have sought leave to appeal against their conviction under section 302, P.P.C. With sentence of life imprisonment for each. They are Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Rafiq petitioners in Cr. P. No,125 of 1988.
3. After hearing their learned counsel, at some length, we find no justification for grant of leave to appeal to Muhammad Rafiq convict. His participation in the occurrence is established by strong independent corroboration of the eye-witness account. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused to him.
4. ' The case of Bashir Ahmad, however, stands on a different footing. His learned counsel has vehemently contended that there is no acceptable corroboration qua him. The assumption in that behalf by the High Court about the recovery of weapon of offence, it is further argued, is due to misreading and non-reading of evidence regarding which plea of wrong identity of recovery witness, has been very strenuously pressed by the learned counsel.
5. ' After hearing him we consider the case of Bashir Ahmed fit for reexamination of evidence so as to consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel as also the other points arising in this case.
6. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted in Cr. P. No,125 of 1988 to Bashir Ahmed accused/convict only.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant side in Cr. P. No,116 of 1988, we consider it fit not to dispose it of at this stage. It shall be heard alongwith appeal arising out of Cr. P. No,125 of