Pakistan Case Law
2001 SCMR 1986

LEHRASAB vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2001 SCMR 1986
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No,173-L of 2000
Date2000-11-08
Judge(s)Abdur Rehman Khan, Abdul Hameed Dogar and Tanvir Ahmed Khan
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal assailing the judgments of the trial court and the High Court whereby his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was maintained, but his death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. The core legal question raised was whether a conviction based solely on the recovery of a weapon and matching empties—where the trial court disbelieved the recovery and the High Court found the empty was fired from a weapon recovered from a co-accused—is legally sustainable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions regarding the sufficiency and reliability of the incriminating evidence against the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal may be granted when substantial questions arise concerning the correctness of circumstantial and forensic evidence relied upon to sustain a murder conviction.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a murder conviction can be sustained solely on the recovery of a weapon and matching empties when the trial court disbelieved the recovery?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted when conflicting findings exist between the trial court and the High Court regarding the forensic evidence of recovered empties?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
leave to appealmurderweapon recoverymatching emptiesappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal

ORDER

1. ' The petitioner was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And was awarded death sentence by the trial Court. In appeal the conviction was maintained but the death sentence was reduced into life imprisonment. This petition has, therefore, been moved to assail the correctness of the impugned judgments.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the only evidence on which conviction has been based is that of recovery of 222 rifle and the matching of the empties picked up from the spot. However, he pointed out that this recovery was not believed by the trial Court and moreover the finding of the High Court is that the empty was fired from the gun recovered from co- accused Muhammad Nawaz.

3. ' We grant leave to appeal to consider the above contentions.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.