FAREED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction in a criminal case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the testimony of two close relatives of the deceased—specifically the son and the sister's son—can serve as a reliable basis for the conviction of the petitioner, when the trial court had already rejected the same evidence regarding five other co-accused who were consequently acquitted. The trial court had noted that the prosecution witnesses had repeatedly changed their version of events, vacillating between the initial F.I.R. and supplementary statements introduced during the investigation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the evidentiary value of such testimony, particularly in the context of a proven background of enmity between the parties. The holding establishes that where prosecution witnesses have demonstrated significant inconsistency and their testimony has been disbelieved by the trial court regarding the majority of co-accused, the sufficiency and credibility of that same evidence against a remaining petitioner requires rigorous appellate scrutiny.
- Can the testimony of close relatives be relied upon for conviction when the same witnesses were disbelieved regarding other co-accused?
- Does a history of previous enmity between parties necessitate higher scrutiny of prosecution witness testimony?
- Is a conviction sustainable when prosecution witnesses have repeatedly changed their version of events during investigation and trial?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---While discussing the evidence of eye-witnesses the learned trial Judge observed as under:- "The eye-witnesses have changed their version on three occasions. While lodging the F.I.R. All the accused were charged for this offence. During the course of investigation, one Salehun was introduced as one of the murders through supplementary statements. In Court, the supplementary statements were disowned and the initial version of the F.I.R. Was adopted through this private complaint. In these circumstances, I am in agreement with the learned defense counsel that the complainant has failed to prove its case against Afzal, Munir, another Munir, Khalid and Akram beyond any shadow of doubt."
2. Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether the evidence of two close relatives of the deceased (son and sister's son) which was not relied upon against as many as five acquitted co-accused could form a sound basis for the conviction of the petitioner particularly when it is prosecutions own case that there was background of previous enmity between the parties.