Mst. SAEEDA BEGUM vs AMJAD ALI and another
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by the sister of the deceased against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent of murder charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent was initially convicted by the trial court for the murder of Mazhar Ali, but the High Court overturned this conviction and dismissed the petitioner's revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in discarding the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Muzaffar Ali, in a case involving a single accused where other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. The Supreme Court observed that the occurrence took place in broad daylight and that the eyewitness, being a close relative of the deceased, would not likely substitute the respondent for the real culprit. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's acquittal, finding that the contention regarding the reliability of the eyewitness testimony required further judicial scrutiny.
- Is the High Court justified in discarding the testimony of a sole eyewitness in a murder case involving a single accused?
- Does the fact that an eyewitness is a relative of the deceased make their testimony inherently unreliable in a murder trial?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against an acquittal where the High Court has discarded the evidence of a witness who did not turn hostile?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Mst. Saeeda Begum, sister of Mazhar Ali deceased, seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 7-7-1993 whereby the appeal of the respondent challenging his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,10,000 under section 302 of the P.P.C. Was allowed and her revision petition for enhancement of the sentence of the respondent was dismissed.
2. The respondent was tried on the allegation that on 17-7-1989 at 12-30 noon he fired at Mazhar Ali deceased near the canal bridge at Baseerpur Road as a result of which he died at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Ahmad Din, Sohna and Muzaffar Ali P.Ws. At the trial Ahmad Din and Sohna turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Muzaffar Ali, real brother of the deceased and first cousin of the respondent, however, supported the prosecution saying that the respondent fired at the deceased thrice as a result of which he died at the spot.
3. The respondent denied the allegation and stated that it was an unwitnessed occurrence and he was falsely involved due to enmity with Muzaffar Ahmed P.W.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the occurrence took place in the broad daylight and it being the case of a single accused the High Court was not justified in discarding the evidence of Muzaffar who would in no case substitute the respondent for the real culprit. The contention requires examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of I A.C., Okara be issued against the respondent.