RIAZ ULLAH vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which affirmed the petitioner's conviction under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for his alleged involvement in a bank robbery. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of evidence leading to the petitioner's arrest, the evidentiary value of recovering items of a general nature, and the reliability of an identification parade conducted fifteen days after the petitioner's arrest. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the identification parade occurred after the petitioner had been in custody for a significant period, providing ample opportunity for the witnesses to have seen him. The Court held that it must examine whether the conviction, based on such identification and general recoveries, aligns with established principles of criminal justice administration. The key principle laid down is that the timing and circumstances of an identification parade are critical to the reliability of identification evidence, and convictions based on delayed parades following potential exposure to witnesses require rigorous judicial scrutiny.
- Does an identification parade conducted fifteen days after an accused's arrest, where witnesses had prior opportunity to view the accused, satisfy the requirements for reliable identification evidence?
- Can the recovery of items of a general nature, such as a turban or handkerchief, serve as sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction for bank robbery?
- What is the standard for evaluating the nexus between recovered general articles and the commission of a specific criminal offence?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---This is petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Federal Shariat Court, dated 4-1-1996 whereby Criminal Appeal No.67-Q of 1994 against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Quetta, dated 31-10-1994, whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to 10 years' R.I. And whipping 30 stripes, was dismissed.
2. Abdul Ghaffar, Manager Allied Bank of Pakistan on 11-10-1993 lodged a written report before the police that at about 5-20 p.m. a person by appearance a Frontier Pathan having concealed his face with a brown colour handkerchief armed with TT Pistol in his hand entered the bank and ordered the complainant to get up. In the meantime another person Pathan by appearance with a white turban on his head followed him. The latter at pistol point ordered the complainant not to raise alarm and locked up him in the bath-room alongwith Accountant and Naib Qasid of the bank. A third person with a blue plastic bag picked up Rs.4,73,275 and 20 prize bonds of Rs.100 each from the counter. In the meantime a customer namely Ishfaq entered the bank who to was hault up and locked with us. All the three accused in-between themselves were talking in Waziri Pashto.
That the accused with the gun, which they had snatched from the guard, fled away. The accused were chased on a motor-cycle but they could not be apprehended.
3. The petitioner was apprehended on 14-10-1993 from village Kalla Comer who led the police party to his house where he produced one white turban, one brown handkerchief and a blue plastic bag containing dry bread and 3 cream colour and one black rubber bands. Identification parade in respect of the accused/petitioner was arranged on 30-10-1994 in the police station under the supervision of Rahim Shah, Magistrate 1st Class, (P.W.4). The petitioner was correctly identified by the complainant and Muhammad Iqbal in the said identification parade. Petitioner was challaned in Court and after denying his involvement in the offence, after framing of the formal charge, the prosecution relied on the statements of the complainant Muhammad Iqbal and corroboration sought from the recoveries from the accused and the identification parade. On such evidence the petitioner was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to the terms stated above. His appeal against the judgment was dismissed by the learned Federal Shariat Court, vide judgment against which leave to appeal is prayed for.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the record leave is granted to consider as to what was the evidence in the case which led the police in arresting the petitioner for the offence. The recoveries of the articles of general nature have any nexus with the commission of offence. When the identification parade was arranged after about 15 days of the arrest of the petitioner with ample opportunity of his having been seen by the complainant and the witnesses, the conviction based on such evidence is in consonance with well-established principle of administration of criminal justice.