MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a jail petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner for murder. The petitioner was originally convicted by a Special Judge for Suppression of Terrorist Activities for the murder of Ghulam Akbar, allegedly committed while attempting to abduct the deceased's daughter. The petitioner challenged the conviction on several grounds, primarily arguing that the prosecution witnesses were closely related to the deceased, thereby necessitating closer scrutiny of their testimony. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the occurrence took place at night without an identification parade, raising serious questions regarding the identity of the accused and the reliability of the evidence. The petitioner also argued that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the defence version in juxtaposition with the prosecution's case. Upon careful examination of the record and the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court determined that a thorough reappraisal of the entire evidence was necessary to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions.
- Does the failure to conduct an identification parade in a night-time occurrence involving alleged eyewitnesses necessitate a reappraisal of evidence?
- Is a conviction based on the testimony of closely related prosecution witnesses sustainable if the trial court fails to properly evaluate the defence version?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to conduct a reappraisal of evidence in a criminal conviction case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This is a jail petition preferred by Muhammad Afzal for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 1-4-1999 passed by learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the death sentence as awarded by learned Special Judge for Suppression of Terrorist Activities Court No,2, Sargodha, vide judgment dated 26-1-1993 has been kept intact.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner was tried alongwith other co-accused under sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C. For the alleged murder of Ghulam Akbar by means of kalashnikov on 8-7-1992 at about 1-30 a.m. (night between 7th and 8th July, 1992) who attempted to save her daughter Mst. Kalsoom from abduction by the petitioner and co-accused. The petitioner was convicted and awarded death sentence with fine of Rs,50,000 and in case of default to suffer further R.I. For two years by the learned Special Judge for Suppression of Terrorist Activities Court by means of order dated 26-1-1993 and appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, hence this petition.
3. ' It is mainly contended by Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner that the factum of inter se relationship between Ghulam Akbar (deceased) and that of prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Rustam son of deceased (P.W.1), Mst.
4. Kalsoom daughter of deceased (P.W.2) Muhammad Hashim, maternal nephew of deceased (P.W.3) has not been kept in view and accordingly the impugned judgment is in conflict with the dictum as laid down by this Court in various cases such as the case titled Ata Muhammad v. The State (1995 SCM R 599) which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is further contended that the alleged occurrence had taken place at 1-30 a.m. (night between 7th and 8th July, 1992) but no identification parade was got conducted and it was not only a case of wrong identity but also in violation of the precedented law as laid down in a large number of cases. Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court has referred the law laid down in case titled Siraj Din v.
5. Kala (PLD 1964 SC 26). It is urged emphatically that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to death on the basis of vague, sketchy and partisan evidence which should have been disbelieved and moreso, that the defence version was underkept in juxtaposition with that of prosecution evidence which caused a serious prejudice and on this score alone the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
6. ' We have carefully examined the abovementioned contentions in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The impugned judgment has been perused with great care and caution. In our considered view, reappraisal of entire evidence would be in the interest of justice so that the contention as mentioned hereinabove could be examined thoroughly and further to ascertain as to whether the learned High Court had followed the principles of safe administration of justice in criminal cases. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.