TAJ MUHAMMADPetit ioner vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and life imprisonment sentence for the murder of Mumtaz Khan. The petitioner, Taj Muhammad, was convicted by the Trial Court for inflicting fatal chhuri blows on the deceased. The core legal question was whether the eyewitness testimony, which the petitioner alleged contained minor discrepancies, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the courts below erred in their appraisal of evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the eyewitnesses were independent, natural witnesses from the same locality, and that the occurrence took place in a familiar setting, precluding mistaken identity. The Court affirmed that minor discrepancies in testimony do not inherently invalidate the evidence of otherwise credible witnesses. Furthermore, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt. While the conviction and sentence were maintained, the Court extended the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the petitioner.
- Does the presence of minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony automatically invalidate the evidence of natural and independent witnesses?
- Is the identification of an accused person reliable when the occurrence takes place in a familiar locality among known persons?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the appraisal of evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Taj Muhammad petitioner alongwith Aurangzcb, acquitted accused were tried by the learned Court of Session, Attock, for committing the murder of Mumtaz Khan on 20-6- 1980 at 9 p.m. At the Hujra of Ohafur, by inflicting him two chhuri blows on the chest of the deceased by the petitioner, whereas his co-accused Aurangzeb held the deceased in his clasp from behind. Fateh Khan and Akbar Khan PWs were present and saw the occurrence. The learned trial Judge found Taj Muhammad petitioner guilty of the offence, convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life, whereas the ease against Aurangzeb was found doubtful. He was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted him from the charge, vide judgment dated 20-5-1981.
2. ' Against his conviction and sentence, Taj Muhammad petitioner filed appeal while the complainant filed criminal revision against the acquittal of Aurangzeb, before the Lahore High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard both the matters, dismissed the same vide his judgment dated 13-2-1989. Hence this petition for leave by the petitioner.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through impugned findings of the Courts below, we have come to the conclusion that this petition has no merit which needs dismissal forthwith. As the occurrence took place in the Hujra where every person of the locality who used to come there is known to each other. The eye-witnesses in this case are of the same locality and in their presence the occurrence took place, therefore, there is no question of mistaken identity of the accused. No previous enmity of these eyewitnesses with the accused is proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the eye-witnesses account suffers from minor discrepancies. In our view, there may or may not be such discrepancies but it does not mean that it should be sufficient to discard the evidence of these independent and natural witnesses. Taj Muhammad petitioner was attributed two chhuri blows to have inflicted on the chest of the deceased with which he died and the case against him is proved beyond doubt and has rightly been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him for life imprisonment and the lenient view in awarding the sentence was taken by the Trial Court only because Akhtar Mehmud had no right to go to the house of Taj Muhammad petitioner, who had every right to push him out. The learned High Court in appeal after appraisal of the evidence, rightly not interfered in the finding of the Trial Court. We also do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave. However, benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is extended to petitioner.
Cited by 1 case
- Sher Afzal, Muhammad Latif vs The State (in both cases) 2025 SCP 94, 2025 SCMR 894