SOLAT ALI KHAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court confirming his conviction and death sentence under section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, read with section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, along with a conviction under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eye-witnesses characterized as interested and chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted after a significant delay of 530 days, the voluntariness and admissibility of a confession made while in custody for another case, and the proof and sufficiency of weapon recoveries. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider these submissions and to re-appraise the evidence on record to determine whether the conviction was rendered in accordance with settled principles for the safe administration of justice. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence in criminal appeals where substantial questions regarding ocular testimony, delayed identification parades, and tainted confessions are raised to ensure the safe administration of justice.
- Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses classified as interested and chance witnesses can form the basis of a safe conviction?
- What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted after a delay of 530 days?
- Can a confession made while the accused is in custody for another case and allegedly resulting from torture be used against him?
- Are weapon recoveries sufficient to connect the accused to the crime when not proved in accordance with law?
- Section 7(1)(a), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13-E, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
' Petitioner was convicted under section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, read with section 302, P.P.C. On three counts and was sentenced to death on each count and to pay a fine of Rs,1,00,000 on each count. He was also convicted under section 13-E Arms Ordinance, 1965 and was sentenced to 7 years R.I. And Rs,10,000 fine, or in default S.I. For six months. These convictions and sentences were confirmed by the High. Court in appeals through the impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the testimony of the eye-witnesses is not confidence inspiring and that their evidence could not be believed being interested and chance witnesses. He also submitted that the identification parade was held after 530 days, therefore, it could not be used as corroborative of ocular testimony. He also criticised confession as a result of torture and also that it could not be used in this case as it was made at a time when the petitioner was arrested in some other cases. He also argued that neither the recoveries have been proved in accordance with law nor those were sufficient to connect the petitioner with the offence.
3. We grant leave to consider the above submissions and to re-appraise and evaluate the evidence on record to determine; as to whether, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced keeping in view the principle laid down by this Court from time to time for safe administration of justice.
' Cr. M. No,132 of 2000. This application will be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal.
Cited by 1 case
- Sardar Muhammad vs The State 2024 YLR 718