ZAFAR HAYAT vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein his death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerned whether the occurrence was unwitnessed, taking place during the dark hours of the night, and whether the petitioner was falsely implicated due to enmity and delay in lodging the first information report. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding the presence of eye-witnesses and the delayed lodging of the story required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioner and directed that the connected petition for enhancement of sentence be heard along with the main matter, thereby laying down principles regarding the scrutiny of ocular account and circumstantial evidence in criminal appeals.
- Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses is reliable when an occurrence takes place during the dark hours of the night?
- Does an inordinate delay in lodging the first information report cast doubt on the prosecution case?
- Can leave to appeal be granted to examine the sufficiency and credibility of evidence in a murder conviction?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, Hayat petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 21-8-1991 whereby his death sentence under section 302, P.P.C. Was altered to imprisonment for life and with this modification his appeal was dismissed.
Sher Muhammad complainant has moved Criminal Petition No,9/L/92 seeking enhancement of the sentence of the convict.
2. The petitioner was tried on the allegation that on the night between 20/21-4-1987 at about 12/1- 00 (mid-night he committed the murder of Muhammad Naut, son of Sher Muhammad by firing at him in a street of Chak No,58/NB.
3. The F.I.R. Version was that on the fateful night Sher Muhammad complainant, his son Muhammad Naut, his (complainant's) brother Dost Muhammad and Ghulam Yaseen P.Ws. Returned from Khushab by a bus. From Bus Stand Dharayma they went to their Chak on foot. At about 12/1-00 (mid-night) they were passing through the street when Zafar Hayat armed with a gun suddenly confronted them and after raising a Lalkara that he would take revenge for the insult fired at Muhammad Naut who died at the spot.
4. At the trial the prosecution examined two eye-witnesses namely Sher Muhammad complainant and Ghulam Yaseen P.Ws. Dost Muhammad was given up as unnecessary. Prosecution also relied on the evidence relating to motive and recovery of gun from Zafar Hayat petitioner.
5. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegation against him. He stated that he was falsely implicated due to political rivalry. The deceased had enmity with many other persons and was killed by someone during the dark hours of the night.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was an unwitnessed occurrence having taken place during dark hours of night; the presence of the eye-witnesses is not established and the petitioner was falsely implicated on mere suspicion. He submits that inordinate delay in lodging up a story. After going through the evidence we feel that the submissions made by the learned counsel require examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to Zafar Hayat petitioner.
Criminal Petition No, 9/L/1992 will be heard alongwith this matter.