MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the trial court, while dismissing both the petitioner's appeal and the complainant's revision for enhancement and acquittal of co-accused. The core legal question is whether the conviction of the sole accused can be sustained solely on ocular testimony when co-accused persons in the same transaction were acquitted and independent corroboration was lacking. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised require detailed examination and granted leave to appeal. The key principle established is that where ocular testimony has been rejected regarding multiple co-accused, the rule of prudence may require independent corroboration before sustaining the conviction of the remaining accused.
- Whether the conviction of an accused under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained on ocular testimony alone when co-accused in the same trial have been acquitted?
- Does the rule of prudence require independent corroboration for the remaining accused when testimony against co-accused is disbelieved?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG.CJ.---Seven persons, including the petitioner, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, on charges under sections 302 and 307, read with section 149, and section 148, Pakistan Penal Code, for causing the death of Khan Baig, deceased, and making murderous assault upon a number of persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the co-accused but convicted the petitioner on the charge under section 302, ibid, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and payment of Rs,20,000 as fine. The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence in the High Court. The complainant party also filed a revision petition calling in question the acquittal of the co-accused and seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner. A learned Single Judge in the High Court dismissed the appeal and the revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner as well as the acquittal of the co-accused. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The conviction of the petitioner rests entirely upon the ocular testimony of two eye-witnesses, namely, Atta Muhammad (P.W.11) and Muhammad Khan (P.W.12). They were the sons of the deceased.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the High Court and the trial Court did not accept the ocular testimony in respect of six out of seven persons put on trial. In the circumstances, the rule of prudence required that the seventh person (that is, the petitioner) should also not have been convicted unless there was independent corroboration available with regard to the role ascribed to him in the occurrence. In his case there was no such confirmatory evidence on the record. In the circumstances, the petitioner should also have been given the benefit of doubt.
4. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.