SHAKIL AHMED and anothers vs SARDAR ALI and anothers
This matter involves two cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had partly accepted an appeal by a convict, Sardar Ali, by reducing his death sentence to imprisonment for life while maintaining the fine. The complainant, Shakil Ahmad, sought enhancement of the sentence, while the convict challenged the conviction itself. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had properly appraised the evidence on record, specifically regarding contradictions between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence. The convict argued that the presence of blackening around the injuries, as noted by the medical witness, contradicted the complainant's claim that shots were fired from a distance of 40-45 feet. Furthermore, the defense challenged the credibility of the recovery of the weapon. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that these features required a thorough reappraisal of the evidence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions to examine the merits of the conviction and sentencing.
- Does the presence of blackening around gunshot wounds contradict ocular testimony claiming shots were fired from a distance?
- Is a reappraisal of evidence required when the High Court fails to address material contradictions between medical and testimonial evidence?
- Can leave to appeal be granted to examine the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal conviction?
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.---Sardar Ali convict seeks leave to appeal in Cr. P.L.A. No,246-L of 1996 against the judgment dated 12-6-1996 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby his appeal was partly accepted and death sentence awarded to him was reduced to imprisionment for life. The sentence of fine was, however, maintained. Shakil Ahmad, complainant in the connected petition (Cr.P.L.A. No,245-L of 1996) has challenged the same judgment of the High Court and seeks enhancement of the sentence.
2. Learned counsel for the parties have taken us through the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the convict petitioner argued that the learned Judges in the High Court have disposed of the appeal before them by making general observations without appraising the evidence in its true perspective. It was pointed out that Dr. Najaf Ali Bukhari P.W.4 had noted that blackening was present around the two injuries found on the body of the deceased which would show that the victim was fired at from a close range. As against this, Shakil Ahmad P.W.7/complainant, who had allegedly seen the occurrence stated that Sardar All fired at him and Jamil deceased from a distance about 40/45 feet. The prosecution version as such stood contradicted by the medical evidence. Learned counsel further argued that the prosecution version is not plausible as on seeing the accused party coming armed to make the attack, if the deceased/complainant party had tried to escape, would not have stood on the roof top to facilitate the attack. According to him, the recovery of gun after about six days of the arrest of the accused/convict should not have been believed.
3. The aforenoted features emerging from the record appear to require reappraisal of the evidence. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted in both the petitions.