MOHMMAD ARSHAD and others vs STATE
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 30-1-1993, which maintained the conviction of the petitioner Muhammad Arshad under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while altering his death sentence to imprisonment for life, and dismissed the complainant's petition on the ground of limitation. The core legal question concerns the reliability of related and chance eyewitnesses and the sufficiency of uncorroborated ocular testimony for maintaining a murder conviction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the credibility of the eyewitnesses were based on valid reasons and detailed scrutiny of the record, and no grounds existed to interfere with the conviction. Furthermore, the complainant's petition was barred by limitation without sufficient cause shown for condonation. The Supreme Court laid down that ocular testimony found reliable upon detailed scrutiny by courts below warrants no interference, and related or chance witnesses whose presence is established can sustain a conviction.
- Whether uncorroborated testimony of related and chance eyewitnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the reliability of eyewitnesses recorded by the trial court and the High Court?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal barred by time can be entertained without showing a reasonable ground for condoning the delay?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Muhammad Arshad convict (hereinafter called the petitioner) and Muhammad Ramzan complainant seek leave to appeal through Cr. P.S.L.A. Nos.130/I/1993 and 167/1/1993, respectively from the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 30-1-1993, whereby conviction of Muhammad Arshad under section 302 of the P.P.C. Was maintained but death sentence awarded by the trial Court thereunder was altered to imprisonment for life and with this modification in the sentence his appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was tried alongwith two others on the allegation that on 14-5-1990 at 9-30 p.m. He gave blows with an iron Sua to Muhammad Sabir deceased ultimately resulting in his death.
3. Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Ikram P.Ws., supported the prosecution version at the trial.
The prosecution also relied on the evidence relating to motive and recovery of iron Sua from the petitioner.
4. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegation against him.
5. After examining the evidence on record the learned trial Judge rejected the evidence relating to recovery of Sua. He also excluded statement Exh. PH, allegedly made by the deceased, from consideration and relying on the ocular and medical evidence convicted the petitioner and co- accused Muhammad Afzal. On appeal the learned Judges of the High Court also held the eyewitnesses to be reliable and relying on their evidence maintained the conviction of the petition but acquitted his co-convict Muhammad Afzal by way of abundant caution.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Muhammad Ramzan P.W., was related to the deceased while Muhammad Ikram P.W., was a friend of Muhammad Ramzan P.W., and both of them resided at distant places therefore their presence at the spot was not established nor their uncorroborated evidence was sufficient to warrant the conviction. This contention was also raised before the High Court but the learned Judges repelled it for good and cogent reasons contained in para. 19 of the impugned judgment. After discussing the evidence in great detail they held that there was no ground to disbelieve the testimony of the eye-witnesses.
7. After examining the evidence on record we find that the learned Judges in the High Court have, on a detailed scrutiny of the record, accepted the ocular evidence against the petitioner for valid reasons and there is no ground for interference with the conviction of the petitioner recorded by the trial Court and maintained by the High Court. As for Cr. P.L.A. No,167/L/1993 filed by Muhammad Ramzan complainant, the same is barred by limitation and no reasonable ground for condoning the delay has been made out. Consequently both the petitions are dismissed.