DRAZ and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which upheld the conviction and life imprisonment sentences of the petitioners, Draz and Shah Nawaz, for the murder of Muhammad Ramzan under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had initially convicted the petitioners, while acquitting a co-accused and dismissing charges under Section 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court affirmed the convictions but reduced the compensation amount payable under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the defense's contention that the key prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses whose testimony lacked necessary corroboration, and that the prosecution failed to establish motive or recovery. The Supreme Court, finding that the points raised regarding the evidentiary value of the witnesses and the sufficiency of proof required examination, granted leave to appeal to reappraise the prosecution evidence to ensure the fair administration of justice.
- Does the testimony of interested witnesses require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction in a murder case?
- Is leave to appeal appropriate when there are substantial questions regarding the sufficiency of prosecution evidence and the credibility of witnesses?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 120-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 234-1991 at 10-30 a.m., a case under section 302/34/120-B, P.P.C. was registered with Police Station Piplan, District Mianwali on the statement of Karim Bukhsh against Draz, Shah Nawaz and Ghulam Hussain for the murder of Muhammad Ramzan. An Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali vide his judgment dated 9-5-1992 convicted Shah Nawaz and Draz under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life as 'Tazie plus to pay Rs.25,000 (rupees twenty five thousand) each to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. as compensation or in default to undergo R.I. for six months each. The accused were acquitted of the charge under section 120-B, P.P.C. Ghulam Hussain accused was acquitted of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. On appeal and revision, the High Court vide its judgment dated 3-6-1999 upheld the conviction of the petitioners. The amount of compensation was reduced from Rs.25,000 (rupees twenty-five thousand) to Rs.10,000 (rupees ten thousand) or in default to suffer R.I. for six months each. This is a petition for leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court.
2. Learned counsel has submitted that Karim Bakhsh P. W.1 is the nephew of the deceased while Ghulam Akbar P.W.2 is his uncle. Both the witnesses are, therefore, interested and their evidence is surely in need of corroboration which is missing from this case. It is added that recovery and motive have not been proved by the prosecution. Learned counsel has submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The points raised by the learned counsel need examination. Leave is, therefore, granted to reappraise the prosecution evidence to ensure fair administration of justice.