GHULAM MEHDI vs The STATE
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of murder and causing injuries with firearms. The core legal question concerns the evidentiary value of ballistic expert reports vis-a-vis direct eyewitness testimony in determining whether a case falls within the scope of further inquiry for the grant of bail. The Supreme Court held that in the presence of direct, definite, forthright, and creditworthy ocular and injured testimony implicating the accused, contrary findings or opinions from a ballistic expert carry lesser weight and cannot outweigh the direct evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that expert evidence is merely confirmatory or explanatory in nature and does not create a ground for further inquiry when robust direct evidence exists.
- Does a ballistic expert report outweigh direct eyewitness and injured testimony for the purpose of granting bail?
- Can expert evidence be considered as primary evidence instead of confirmatory or explanatory evidence?
- Whether contradictions between weapon recovery reports and direct allegations constitute a case of further inquiry under criminal law?
ORDER
1. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner has moved this petition for grant of bail.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 29-7-1989 it was alleged that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused attacked the deceased and injured Nazir Hussain P.W. The petitioner was armed with .12 bore gun and the co-accused Abbas was also armed with .12 bore gun. A shot was fired by the petitioner which hit Muhammad Shabbir on his left shoulder and the second shot hit P.W. Nazir on left arm.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the empties recovered from the place of Wardat matched with the gun recovered from the co---accused Abbas, therefore, the petitioner is innocent and at least it is a case of further inquiry. This contention has no force. The complainant and the injured have implicated the present petitioner. He was armed with a .12 bore gun. As regards the opinion of the expert, in the presence of direct evidence, much weight cannot be attached to such opinion. This Court has already held such view in Yaqoob v. State PLD 1976 SC 53, wherein it was observed as hereunder:-- "---------It is well-established that expert evidence, may it be medical or that of a Ballistic Expert is entirely in the nature of confirmatory or explanatory of direct or other circumstantial evidence.
4. But if there is direct evidence as in the instant case which is definite, forthright and at the same time creditworthy, confirmatory, evidence is not of much significance. It cannot, at any rate, outweigh the direct evidence unless it is for any reason deficient in quality."
5. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Muhammad Mureed s/o Ghulam Qadir vs The State 2020 SHC 436