Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD KHALID HUSSAIN- Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentences of the petitioners for the murders of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the guilt of the accused through ocular testimony, recoveries, and medical evidence, despite alleged discrepancies in the medical reports regarding the number of injuries sustained by one of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the occurrence took place in broad daylight, the eye-witnesses were independent and natural, and the prosecution evidence was consistent. The Court determined that the ocular testimony could not be discarded based on a minor discrepancy in medical testimony that was not challenged during cross-examination. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witnesses are reliable and independent, and their testimony is corroborated by other evidence, minor discrepancies in medical reports—especially those not raised or challenged in lower courts—do not suffice to undermine the prosecution's case or warrant interference with concurrent findings of fact.
- Can ocular testimony be discarded solely based on an unchallenged discrepancy in medical evidence regarding the number of injuries?
- Does the failure to cross-examine a medical witness on a discrepancy in the number of injuries render that evidence reliable?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses subject to interference in leave to appeal proceedings?
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25-9-1990.
2.The petitioners were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, under section 302/34, P.P.C., for the murders of Shaukat Ali and Khalid, and sentenced to death on two counts with a fine of Rs,20,000 on each count or in default thereof R.I. For one year each on each count. They were also directed to pay a compensation of Rs,10,000 each to the heirs of the two deceased or in default thereof R.I. For one year each on each count.
3.The petitioners filed two separate appeals before the High Court. Their appeals were disposed of by the common judgment, and both were dismissed.
4.According to the prosecution case, the petitioners and Shaukat Ali deceased were working in a Rubber Factory. Muhammad Khalid, the petitioner, was married to the sister of Muhammad Malik. Muhammad Khalid was desirous of divorcing his wife. Muhammad Asif accused was his friend. Shaukat Ali deceased was a friend of Muhammad Malik. On 20-11-1985 a Punchayat was held in village Veroke, so as to persuade Muhammad Khalid, the petitioner, not to divorce the sister of Malik. On the day of occurrence at about 4-30 p.m. The deceased left for their village on a motorcycle. When they reached near the G.T. Road, the petitioners-accused, who were armed with knives, signalled the deceased to stop and when they stopped they assaulted them and severely injured them. Muhammad Abbas P.W.13 and Safdar P.W. 14 gave the ocular testimony of the occurrence. Both of them have corroborated the prosecution evidence. In their presence the accused have given the knife and dagger blows to the deceased. They had no enmity with the accused.
5.Both the accused have denied the prosecution's allegations and stated that they have been falsely involved. In order to bring home the charge against the petitioners-accused, besides the statements of the eye-witnesses, the prosecution relied on the motive, the recoveries of knife and dagger on the pointation of the accused. The motive was discarded. The two pieces of evidence were considered sufficient for the conviction of the petitioners. The occurrence took place in the broad daylight. There was no enmity. The eye-witnesses are independent and natural witnesses. Their evidence has been properly appreciated by the two Courts. The plea that the accused have been implicated on account of the labour union's activities has been discarded. There is no material to substantiate the contention that the deceased had any against the appellants before the occurrence.
6.Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Dr. Muhammad Ali Chattha P.W.2 in his deposition has stated that Muhammad Khalid deceased had two injuries; whereas Dr. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar P.W. 10 had found 11 injuries on the person of Muhammad Khalid deceased. The defence has not denied the factum of injuries on the person of Khalid. P.W.10 was not cross- examined in the light of the statement of P.W.
2. In fact, the statement of P.W. 10, about the number of injuries, remained unchallenged. The place of occurrence and the time of occurrence have been established through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In their presence the accused caused the injuries. The eye-witnesses account of the occurrence cannot be thrown away on the statement of P.W.2. The petitioners have not raised this plea before the High Court.
These petitions have no force. The same are dismissed and the leave prayed for refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- ZAHID MEHMOOD Versus State 2020 YLRN 62
- KHAWAND BUX Versus THE STATE 1997 PCRLJ 280
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments
- Saiduzzaman Siddiqui789 judgments