Pakistan Case LawRIZWAN ANWAR Versus THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 13-2-1993, whereby the petitioner's conviction under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was maintained, but the sentence of death was reduced to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the sustainability of the conviction based on direct eyewitness testimony, motive, and absconsion, notwithstanding the acquittal of a co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the guilt of the petitioner based on credible eyewitness accounts and proved absconsion warranted no interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, reinforcing the principle that differing judicial outcomes between co-accused are legally sound where distinct roles, specific overt acts, and evidence of absconsion are established against the convicted party.
- Whether conviction can be sustained on the same set of evidence upon which a co-accused was acquitted when a specific overt role is attributed to the convicted person?
- Does the failure to produce warrant documents on file vitiate the proof of absconsion when police testimony confirms proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court regarding eyewitness testimony be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 13-2-1993.
2.The facts in brief are that Muhammad Ismail complainant lodged a report with P.S. Chak Jhumra, Faisalabad, stating therein that Sift Nawaz and Niyar Nawaz had beaten Rizwan and Irfan 7/8 months prior to the occurrence. Rizwan and Irfan suspected that Maqsood Ahmad and
Muhammad Aslam were helping Sift Nawaz. On the day of occurrence Rizwan Ahmad armed with rifle and Irfan (acquitted accused) armed with a gun came there; they raised Lalkara; Rizwan fired with his rifle which hit Maqsood Ahmed on the right side of his chest. The acquitted accused made a second shot which hit on the right jaw of Muhammad Aslam P.W.
3.The trial Judge convicted the petitioner under sections 302 and 307, P.P.C., and sentenced to death plus fine under section 302, P.P.C.; and 7 years' R.I. With fine under section 307, P.P.C. The co- accused was acquitted. The High Court by the impugned judgment maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence of death to life imprisonment.
4.The P.Ws. 7, 8 and 9 have deposed about the facts and implicated the petitioner. They attributed a specific role to the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted on the basis of direct evidence, motive and absconsion.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the same set of evidence the co- accused was acquitted, but the petitioner was convicted. There was no allegation of abscondence against the co-accused. The benefit of doubt was giving to the accused. The learned trial Judge did believe the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the acquitted. Both the Courts have accepted the statements of the eye-witnesses against the present petitioner. The learned counsel has stated that the date of occurrence is 27-11-1987 and the police arrested the petitioner on 23-4-1988. There is no sufficient evidence to prove that the accused has absconded. He has referred to the statement of Nazeer Ahmad P.W. 12, who stated in cross-examination that neither the warrants of arrest entrusted to him nor his report was available on the file. This witness clearly stated that the warrants of arrest were entrusted to him, but they could not be executed and he returned it to the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate. He further stated that he got the warrants under section 87/88, Cr.P.C. From the Court concerned. The Investigating Officer has supported this witness that the proceedings under section 87/88, Cr.P.C. Were taken. The warrants were affixed at the door of the house of the accused. The petitioner is a. Resident of Chak No, 125/R.B. P.S. Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad, but he could not explain about his absence from the town after the occurrence. There is no misreading of evidence.
This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed C for is refused.
Judges on this bench
- Saleem Akhtar1,928 judgments