MUHAMMAD ISAHAQ and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that maintained the conviction of the petitioners on a capital charge. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's consideration is whether the High Court was legally justified in upholding a conviction based solely on the testimony of interested witnesses in a capital case, in the absence of sufficient corroboration. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the propriety of this conviction, specifically focusing on the evidentiary requirements for sustaining a capital conviction when relying on interested witnesses. The holding of the Court at this stage is limited to the grant of leave to appeal, thereby establishing the principle that the sufficiency of corroboration for interested witness testimony in capital cases is a substantial question of law requiring appellate review.
- Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction on a capital charge without corroboration?
- Was the High Court justified in maintaining a conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses?
ORDER
1. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Leave to appeal is granted in these petitions, inter alia, to consider whether the High Court was justified in law to maintain the conviction of the petitioners on the testimony of interested witnesses on capital charge without sufficient corroboration .