MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction, specifically challenging the reliance placed by the lower courts on ocular evidence. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court is whether ocular evidence, which was previously found insufficient and rejected by the trial court regarding co-accused persons who were subsequently acquitted, can legally serve as a reliable basis for the conviction of the remaining petitioners in the absence of independent corroboration. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine this contention, focusing on the principle of consistency in the appreciation of evidence. The holding implies that the conviction of the petitioners may be unsustainable if the same evidence deemed unreliable for acquitted co-accused is used against them without additional supporting proof. The key principle laid down is that where ocular evidence is discarded regarding some co-accused, it requires independent corroboration before it can be safely utilized to sustain the conviction of other co-accused persons, ensuring that the evidentiary standard remains consistent and fair across all parties involved in the criminal proceedings.
- Can ocular evidence that was rejected against acquitted co-accused be used to convict other petitioners without independent corroboration?
- Does the rejection of ocular evidence against some co-accused necessitate independent corroboration for the conviction of remaining co-accused?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Leave to appeal is granted to consider the contention that in the absence of corroboration from an independent source, the ocular evidence which was not relied upon against acquitted co-accused Muhammad Zubair and Muhammad Aslam could not form a sound basis for the conviction of the petitioners.
Cited by 1 case
- ALI SHER and others vs The STATE 2016 P Cr. L J 627