ALI MUHAMMAD vs BASHIR AHMED and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The respondent had been convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death, with compensation ordered under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court set aside the conviction, finding no evidence against the respondent. The petitioner argued that the testimony of P.W.5 regarding the respondent carrying a hatchet, the recovery of the weapon, and an extra-judicial confession were sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and held that the recovery of a weapon without corroborative evidence is not substantial proof of guilt. Furthermore, the Court found the testimony regarding the hatchet insufficient and the extra-judicial confession unreliable. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's finding of 'no evidence' did not suffer from misreading or non-reading of material evidence, and consequently dismissed the petition as meritless.
- Is the recovery of a weapon of offence, standing alone, sufficient to prove guilt without corroborative evidence?
- Does the testimony of a witness seeing an accused carrying a weapon on the day of the incident constitute sufficient evidence to prove a murder charge beyond reasonable doubt?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the appellate court finds that the prosecution failed to produce evidence sufficient to establish guilt?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---The respondent was tried for murder of Muhammad Riaz by the learned Additional District Judge, Shorkot who through judgment, dated 15-10-1996, convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. And awarded him death sentence. He was also further directed to pay Rs,25,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default to undergo four months' S.I. In appeal filed by the respondent-convict and murder reference, the learned Judges of the High Court through the impugned judgment set aside the said conviction and acquitted him by holding that there was no evidence available against the respondent on the record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition maintained that evidence of P.W.5 to the effect that he had seen the respondent carrying hatchet on the fateful day which was allegedly used in the offence coupled with the recovery of the said hatchet and evidence of extra-judicial confession was sufficient to prove the case against the respondent, therefore, conviction recorded by the trial Court and award of sentence Of death was legally justified.
3. We have examined the impugned judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court and the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case to ascertain whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable shadow of doubt the guilt of the respondent. It may he mentioned here that recovery of weapon of offence by itself without any other corroborative evidence was not a substantial piece of evidence. The evidence of P.W.5 to the effect that he had seen the respondent on the fateful day carrying hatchet was also of not evidence of the nature to hold that the case against the respondent had been proved beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.
The extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the respondent was rightly not given any credence having been made before two persons at the same time. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admitted when questioned that the P.W.5 did not state in the Court that the hatchet present in the Court was the same about which he alleged to have carried by the respondent.
4. After undertaking scrutiny of the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are fully satisfied that the findings of the High Court that it was a case of no evidence does not suffer from any illegality such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is found to be meritless which is hereby dismissed and .
Cited by 4 cases
- Asif Ali Versus State 2026 YLR 1920
- Anwar and another vs The State 2023 YLR 2185
- Naveed Asghar and two others vs The State 2021 PLD Supreme Court 600, 2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 258, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 534,
- SHAUKAT ALI Versus State 2005 YLR 2301