ZULIFQAR alias BHUTTO and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Zulifqar alias Bhutto and others against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which had upheld their convictions and sentences initially imposed by the Special Judge for Speedy Trials. The petitioners challenged the High Court's decision to dismiss their appeal. During the appellate proceedings, the High Court had modified the conviction of one petitioner, Arib, altering it from an offense under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, to one under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence presented, specifically noting the absence of any animus or motive for the complainant or prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioners. Furthermore, the Court observed that the incident occurred in broad daylight, indicating a daring commission of the offense. Finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the convictions and sentences as determined by the High Court.
- Does the absence of animus on the part of prosecution witnesses support the reliability of their testimony in a criminal conviction?
- Can the High Court alter a conviction from an offense under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 to one under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 during an appeal?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Zulifqar alias Bhutto and others have petitioned through jail for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 2.4- 1)88.
2. The High Court while dealing with the appeal of the petitioners against their conviction and sentence by the Special Judge for Speedy Trials No,VI, Bahawalpur, considered the entire evidence and accordingly dismissed the same. However, the conviction of Arib was altered from section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 to one under section 394/34, P.P.C. And he was sentenced to ten years' R.I. And line of Rs,10,000 or in default two years' R.I.
3. ' I have not come across any evidence so as to indicate that either the complainant or the prosecution witnesses had any animus to depose against the petitioners.
4. ' It was a broad daylight incident. Very daring indeed. I don't find any merit in this petition and would accordingly dismiss the same.