MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another vs THE STATE and others
The matter involves two separate petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28-11-1988, one filed by the convict seeking acquittal from the murder charge and the other by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence from imprisonment for life to death. The core legal questions pertain to the appreciation of ocular versus medical evidence regarding pellet injuries allegedly caused by a pistol, and the condonation of a 443-day delay in filing the complainant's petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the convict to examine the material contradiction between the ocular version and the medical evidence, while dismissing the complainant's petition as being heavily time-barred by 443 days and devoid of merit. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the weapon used warrant a detailed examination by the court, and an inordinate delay without sufficient cause is fatal to a petition.
- Does a contradiction between the ocular version and medical evidence regarding pellet injuries warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- Can a petition for special leave to appeal barred by 443 days be entertained without sufficient cause?
- Whether the High Court erred in commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life based on the evidence presented?
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Two separate petitons (Cr.P.2-R/89 and 17--R/89) for special leave to appeal have been filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawlapindi Bench dated 28-11-1988. In the former the petitioner wants the impugned judgment to be set aside and he acquitted of the murder charge. The latter is by the complainant who lodged report with regard to the murder of his brother Zafar Iqbal which took place on 8-8-1984 after Maghrab prayer in the area of village Majhia, tehsil Fateh Jang, District Attock. He is aggrieved by the judgment to the extent that the High Court erred in law in commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life.
2. He, therefore, wants the same to be enhanced.
3. ' We have heard learned counsel in both the petitions.
4. ' In the case of Muhammad Nawaz, learned counsel submitted that the medical evidence belied the ocular version; hence there was no sufficient evidence in law to maintain the conviction of the petitioner. In this sequence he drew our attention to the post-mortem report of the deceased where the doctor who performed autopsy found 21 pieces of pellets beneath injuries Nos. 2, 6, 8 and were handed over to the police in a sealed bottle.
5. It was submitted that the weapon alleged to have been used by the petitioner was pistol. It is thus obvious that there was a material contradiction in the ocular version and the medical evidence.
6. This aspect was not properly appreciated by the High Court.
7. ' The contention is not devoid of force. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal to examine the aforesaid aspect.
8. ' So far as the other petition is concerned, this is barred by 443 days. It merits dismissal on this ground alone. Nevertheless, we are of the view that even, otherwise, there is no merit in this petition