GULZAR and another vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for the murder of Noor Muhammad. The trial court had previously convicted the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing one to death and others to life imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the identification of the accused was reliable given that the incident occurred at night, and whether the benefit of doubt should have been extended to the petitioners. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the complainant, who was familiar with the accused as residents of an adjoining village, provided credible testimony. The Court found no evidence of enmity or hostility that would render the complainant interested. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant's testimony was corroborated by the evidence of a tracker regarding footprints and the eyewitness account of another prosecution witness. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, finding no merit in the contention that the identification was doubtful.
- Whether the identification of accused persons in a night-time occurrence is reliable when the complainant is previously acquainted with them?
- Does the testimony of a tracker regarding footprints provide sufficient corroboration for an eyewitness account in a murder case?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed if the trial and appellate courts have provided cogent reasons for conviction?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---Facts in brief leading to the filing of this petition for leave to appeal are that Gulzar son of Noor Muhammad, Maqsood son of Sultan and Sooba son of Sultan were reported against with Police Station Langrana, District Jhang for the murder of Noor Muhammad. Case was got registered by Zulfiqar, father of the deceased. Learned trial Court vide its judgment, dated 13-11- 1995 found Gulzar guilty under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death. Remaining accused namely Maqsood and Sooba were sentenced to imprisonment for life. Convicts appealed.
2. During pendency of the appeal, Maqsood died, therefore, appeal to his extent abated. A learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, vide its judgment, dated 29-11-2000 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentences of the accused. Petitioners have now challenged the said order of Lahore High Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance perused the file.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that it was night time occurrence, therefore, the question of identity is doubtful and in such circumstances, benefit of doubt should have been extended to the petitioners. After examining the record, we have noticed that Zulfiqar complainant appeared on oath and deposed that he knew the petitioners previously as they were the residents of the adjoining village. He was put to the test of lengthy cross- examination about his enmity or background of hostility against the petitioners but nothing could be brought on the record which could persuade the trial Court to hold that complainant was interested, inimical or had any background of hostility. The statement of Zulfiqar complainant is amply corroborated by the statement of tracker who had tracked the footprints of the petitioners.
4. There is also a statement of Muhammad Ishaque P.W.6, who had seen the petitioners at the scene of occurrence.
5. 'After having scanned the entire file, we are of the view that cogent reasons have been given by the learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court for dismissing the appeal of the petitioners. We find no merit in this petition, which fails and is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.