MAQBOOL AHMED and anothers vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for murder and attempted murder. The petitioners challenged the judgment of the High Court, which maintained their convictions and sentences under sections 302, 307, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of an injured witness, in the absence of independent corroboration, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the physical impossibility of the injuries as described by the prosecution warranted acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of the injured witness, whose presence at the scene was established and who had no enmity with the accused, was sufficient to support the conviction when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence. The Court rejected the argument regarding the impossibility of the injuries, noting that the location of wounds depends on the specific circumstances of the struggle. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the convictions.
- Is the solitary testimony of an injured witness sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
- Can a conviction be maintained where the physical possibility of an injury is challenged based on the positioning of the victim and assailant?
- Does the presence of an injured witness, whose presence is established and who lacks enmity, provide sufficient basis for conviction?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment each with fine under section 302/307, P.P.C. And sentence of two years' R.I. Under section 148, P.P.C. Passed by the learned trial Court, have been maintained.
2. The brief facts as stated in the FI.R. Are that Muhammad Sharif complainant was a resident of Mauza Samara and a cultivator by profession. On 7-11-1989 at about 10-00 a.m. He alongwith his son Muhammad Sarwar deceased was coming from his fields to his house. When they reached near Mehranwali Mosque, Maqbool Ahtned and Manzoor Ahmed sons of Muhammad Raman armed with daggers, Khadim Hussain holding dagger and Muhammad Yousuf, Allah Rakha and Muhammad Yaqoob empty-handed came from the back side of the mosque where they had hidden themselves. Allah Rakha raised Lalkara that Muhammad Sarwar deceased should not be spared. At this Muhammad Yousuf caught hold of deceased and Maqbool Ahmed gave a dagger blow which landed on the left side of his chest. Thereafter Manzoor Ahmed also gave a dagger blow which hit the deceased below the left arm pit upon which he, fell on the ground. Muhammad Afzal P.W. Came forward to rescue the deceased, but Muhammad Yagoob caught hold of him and Khadim Hussain petitioner gave him a dagger blow which hit him on the left side of his chest. Orr commotion Allah Rakha P.W.4 and Asghar Ali P.W.8 were attracted and on their request the accused went away threatening the P.Wi. Muhammad Sarwar died on the spot. The motive is alleged to be an -altercation which took place between Muhammad Sarwar and. Muhammad Yousuf about a month back over the, theft of a baffalo in which Muhammad Sarwar gave a beating to Muhammad Yousuf. The matter was'patched up, that it seems that the accused nursed grudge and committed this murder. The learned trial Judge convicted Maqbool Ahmed, Manzoor Ahmed, Muhammad Yousaf, Allah Rakha, Muhammad Yagoob and Khadim Hussain and sentenced them to imprisonment for the life under sections 302/148 and 307/148, P.P.C. And to two years' R.I. Under section 148, P.P.C. And fine. However, in appeal Muhammad Yactoob and Allah Ralcha were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted. The petitioners have challenged this judgment. The statement of accused was recorded under section 340 as well as under section 342, Cr.P.C. All the accused denied the incident and pleaded that they have falsely been implicated.
However, Manzoor Ahmed in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Stated that none of the co- accused was present at the place of occurrence and he had injured Muhammad Sarwar in self- defence. He also stated that he had injured Muhammad Afzal to save his life. In his statement under section 340, Cr.P.C. Manzoor Ahmed stated on oath that he had seen Muhammad Sarwar deceased and P.W. Muhammad Afzal and Mst. Safia Bibi daughter of Asghar Ali P.W. In a compromising position in his fields. They requested him that he should not divulge this to anyone, but he stated that he would tell it to the father of Mst. Safia Bibi. Thereupon, they threatened him and on the day of occurrence he had gone to fetch cigarette when Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Sarwar, who were standing with Dang and dagger attacked him. Muhammad Sarwar hit a Dang blow on his head while Muhammad Afzal attempted to give a knife blow. Upon this he snatched the knife from him and gave a blow with it. He also gave two knife blows to Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Sarwar each. He admitted that he had no previous enmity with them.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the occurrence as stated by the P.Ws. That Muhammad Yousaf caught hold of Muhammad Sarwar deceased from the back side, it was not possible to cause any injury with dagger in the arm-pit. The contention does not seem to be correct. The location of injury shows that it could be inflicted depending upon how the deceased had been caught hold of because even if a person catches hold of anyone from the back side, it is possible that the injury may be caused in the arm-pit. The learned counsel contended that there is no independent ocular evidence and, ,therefore, the petitioners could not have been convicted.
This aspect has been considered by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Judge in Chambers and they have believed the ocular testimony of Muhammad Afzal whose presence has not been denied. He has also suffered injury at the hands of the accused and there was no enmity with him. According to the learned Judge-in-Chambers, his solitary evidence corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the petitioners. The learned Judge has referred to the evidence of Allah Rakha P.W. 4 and Asghar Ali P.W. 8 whose presence was established. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. We refuse to grant leave.