KAKKU alias SHEEDA vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Kakku alias Sheeda against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which maintained his conviction and sentence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order for possessing opium, while setting aside his conviction under Article 3. The core legal question involves the propriety of convictions based solely on the testimony of police witnesses without independent corroboration from public witnesses, a matter under examination by the Supreme Court in other cases. The Supreme Court did not finally decide the merits of the case but ordered that the sentence of the petitioner be suspended and he be released on bail pending the hearing of similar matters.
- Are convictions based solely on the testimony of police witnesses proper in criminal cases?
- Can the sentence of a convict be suspended pending the examination of related legal questions by the Supreme Court?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The case of the prosecution was that on 11-5-1987 at about 6-15 p.m. Ch. Muhammad Ismail S.I. P.W.6 alongwith a police party was present at Bus Stand Lodhran. While he was still there he received some information that one Kakku alias Sheeda (petitioner herein) was at Super Highway (opposite Brick Kiln) and was selling opium. On receipt of this information, the S.I.
2. Alongwith his party proceeded towards the spot and when they had reached near Sahiwal Hotel they met Saeed Ahmad son of Haji Muhammad Nawaz P.W. And asked him to accompany them.
3. On reaching the spot Riaz Ahmad Constable, who was in civilian clothes, was made a fake customer and given Rs, 20 in the shape of two currency notes to purchase some opium. He, accordingly, approached the petitioner and purchased 10 grams of opium from him. As soon as he passed on the opium to Riaz Ahmad the raiding party, on his signal, pounced upon the petitioner and recovered a large quantity of opium (weighing over 2 kilograms).
4. ' The petitioner was tried under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order and sentenced to 2 years' R.I. Under Article 3 and to 4 years' R.I. Plus 20 stripes under Article 4. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court set aside the sentenceunder Article 3 of the Order but maintained the sentence under Article 4. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, submitted that in the raiding party there was only one witness from the public namely Saeed Ahmad but he too has not supported the case of the prosecution; all the remaining witnesses were police officials and there was no other independent witness to support the prosecution case.
6. The question whether convictions based solely on the testimony of the police witnesses are proper in the circumstances of our society and the manner in which the prosecution is applying the dictum of this Court to the effect that a conviction based on their evidence is not illegal, is being examined in some other cases also.
7. ' To come up with similar matters.
8. ' In the meanwhile, the sentence of the petitioner shall be suspended on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs, 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Multan.