FATZ AHMAD vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner challenged the maintenance of his life imprisonment sentence by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the reliability of eye-witness testimony and the sufficiency of evidence were sustainable. The prosecution's case relied on the oral testimony of two related eye-witnesses, medical evidence, and a motive of revenge for a murder committed twenty-five years prior. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was well-founded, noting that the lower courts had correctly evaluated the evidence. The Court affirmed that the eye-witnesses were natural witnesses residing in the locality, their testimony was intrinsically true and reliable, and their account was corroborated by medical evidence showing injuries inflicted with vengeance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction and sentence, and establishing that concurrent findings based on credible, corroborated testimony regarding the nature of injuries and witness veracity do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
- Are concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the reliability of eye-witness testimony subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does the testimony of related witnesses, when found intrinsically true and corroborated by medical evidence, sustain a conviction?
- Is a motive of revenge sufficient to support a conviction when corroborated by other evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--This is a petition from jail by petitioner Faiz Ahmad, who was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, alongwith co-accused Nasir, under section 302/34, P.P.C. And awarded the main sentence of life imprisonment each and fine etc. The petitioner's appeal has been dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, vide judgment dated 19th January, 1987, whereby the conviction and sentence awarded to him was maintained. The prosecution case mainly rested on the oral testimony of two witnesses, namely, Abdul Razaq (PW 7) and Kamal Din (PW 8). In addition the prosecution relied upon the medical evidence and motive, which was to the effect that about 25 years back when accused Faiz Ahmad was an infant his father Faiz Ali was murdered by deceased Sardar Ali and this murder was, therefore, committed to avenge the earlier murder. There was a third accused Allah Dad who was acquitted by the trial Court but in his deposition he had admitted that the deceased had murdered the father of accused Faiz Ahmad.
2. ' Although the two eye-witnesses are related to the deceased but having evaluated their evidence the two Courts below found their version intrinsically true and reliable. Their version also was corroborated by the medical evidence which indicated that the deceased was given injuries with a vengeance. The deceased had two fire-arm injuries attributed to Faiz Ahmad who is said to have been armed with a pistol and nine incised wounds by accused Nasir who was armed with a knife.
3. Both accused have been attributed injuries which in the opinion of the doctor were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death.
4. After having pursued the evidence and the judgment of the Courts below, I am of the opinion that the conviction is well-founded and does not warrant interference. The two witnesses are natural witnesses being residents of the locality and there is nothing in their testimony which cast any doubt on their veracity. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this petition deserves dismissal.
5. ' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--I agree.