MUHAMMAD ALTAF and 6 others vs THE STATE
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by seven petitioners against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld their convictions and sentences for various offenses, including murder and attempted murder. The petitioners were convicted under sections 302(b), 149, 324, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving sentences ranging from death to life imprisonment. The core legal questions presented for consideration concern the proper evaluation of evidence, specifically the impact of a police officer's testimony declaring certain accused as innocent, the procedural validity of setting aside a magistrate's discharge order without a hearing, the reliability of ocular testimony when eye-witnesses are deemed interested, and the alleged conflict between medical and ocular evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether these factors undermine the convictions. Additionally, the Court addressed a bail application for one petitioner based on medical grounds, directing a medical examination to determine the nature of his ailment before further consideration. The judgment focuses on the necessity of re-evaluating evidentiary weight and procedural fairness in criminal convictions.
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
- Is it legally permissible to set aside a magistrate's discharge order without providing the accused an opportunity to be heard?
- Does a conflict between medical and ocular evidence necessitate the acquittal of the accused?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 3-11-1996 delivered by a learned Division Bench of Lahorel1igh Court, in appeal filed by petitioners against their conviction and sentence.
2. Out of the petitioners Muhammad Altaf, Farooq Altaf and Mujahid Nawaz have been awarded death sentence on one count while imprisonment for life on another count under sections 302(b) and 149, P.P.C. They also were convicted and sentenced under sections 324/149 and 148, P.P.0 and have been ordered to suffer various types of imprisonment and to pay compensation. Humayun Altaf, Niaz Ahmad, Muhammad Hussain and Hakim Ali, who are petitioners Nos.4 to 7, have been convicted and sentenced under section 302(b), P.P.0 to imprisonment for life etc. And also under sections 324/149 and 148, P.P.0 to various terms of imprisonment. The following grounds are stressed for leave to appeal:--
(a) The testimony of C.W.1 Mian Altaf Ahmad, DSP, declaring Muhammad Altaf, Said Muhammad, Farooq Altaf and Niaz Ahmad as not guilty, has not been considered in its correct perspective as the petitioners have not extended the benefit accruing from it;
(b) The order of learned Magistrate whereby the said accused/appellants were discharged, was not taken into consideration and was set aside without affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioners or recording some evidence;
(c) The testimony of the eye-witnesses has not been found confidence inspiring in respect of the acquitted accused Muhammad Nawaz and Said Muhammad which could not be made basis for conviction of the appellants in absence of trustworthy and reliable supporting evidence;
(d) The witnesses who gave ocular account were interested and without independent corroboration of their evidence it could not be made basis for a.Finding of guilt;
(e) The conflict in medical and ocular evidence was glaring and was discarded without any valid reason.
3. We grant leave to appeal to consider the impact of the above points on the merits of the case.
4. There is also Criminal Miscellaneous No,81-L of 1997 wherein Hakim Ali petitioner No,7, who has been awarded imprisonment for life, has requested for bail on account of old age, ailment and admission in Surgical Ward of Mayo Hospital, Lahore since 16-12-1996. The learned counsel, however, was not in a position to indicate correct nature of the disease for which the petitioner has been admitted in the hospital. We, therefore, direct the Superintendent Jail to refer the said petitioner to Incharge Mayo Hospital, Lahore to examine him for his disease and to submit the report within a month. On receipt of the report, the bail matter of the said petitioner be fixed for hearing before the Court.