ANWARUL HAQ vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of the petitioner's criminal appeal by the High Court, upholding his conviction for murder. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the ocular testimony and whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in a broad-daylight murder case. The Supreme Court held that the natural witnesses provided a consistent and trustworthy account of the incident, which was fully corroborated by prompt registration of the First Information Report and supporting medical evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of natural witnesses who withstand rigorous cross-examination and offer plausible explanations for their presence at the scene is sufficient to sustain a conviction, provided it is corroborated by medical evidence and free from material discrepancies.
- Whether the testimony of natural witnesses can be relied upon without corroboration in a murder case?
- Does prompt registration of an F.I.R. rule out mistaken identity in a broad-daylight occurrence?
- Whether minor discrepancies in ocular accounts are sufficient to discard trustworthy prosecution evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 8-7-2002, whereby criminal appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Facts briefly are that F.I.R. No,333 was got registered at theinstance of Muhammad lqbal P.W., the brother of the deceased under section 302, P.P.C. At Police Station City Sargodha on 9-7-1999, statingtherein that his sister Mst. Safia deceased was earlier married to one Nisar-ul-Haq who died 4/5 years earlier, leaving behind two sons and two daughters. She was living alongwith her in-laws in the house at Zafar Colony Sargodha. The petitioner, the brother of the deceased husband, used to tease her with bad intention, which factum was conveyed by the deceased on telephone to the complainant who came alongwith Muhammad Arshad. The deceased narrated the whole story whereupon, they boarded a Tonga for the house, of the petitioner and reached there. They asked him about the allegations levelled against him. Whereupon the petitioner brought out a gun and fired at her which proved fatal.
3. The petitioner was apprehended on the 11th of July, 1999 and led to the recovery of .12 bore gun.
After usual investigation, the challan was submitted. The prosecution examined six witnesses to establish its case. The ocular account has been stated in its material particulars by Muhammad Iqbal P.W.4 and Muhammad Khalil P.W.5. When the petitioner was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., he denied his participation.
4. The learned trial Judge after thrashing the entire evidence brought on record convicted the petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,1,00,000, half of which, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs, in default whereof to further undergo two years' S.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., was also accorded. The petitioner filed criminal appeal, which has been dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. We have considered the contention's and have gone through the record appended with this petition. It was a broad-daylight occurrence and the F.I.R. Was recorded with promptitude. Since the parties were known to each other prior to this incident as such there was no question of mistaken identity. It is true that the ocular account has been witnessed but that fact itself would not be sufficient to discard the testimony of the P.Ws., if it otherwise inspires confidence. They are the natural witnesses and stood test of cross-examination. They have given plausible explanation for their presence at the spot. Nothing has been brought on record why these witnesses would implicate the petitioner in an offence entailing capital punishment. The medical evidence is totally in line with the ocular account. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading. The petition is therefore dismissed' and the .
Cited by 2 cases
- SALAHUDDIN and another vs The STATE 2018 P Cr. L J 1297
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs The STATE 2017 YLR 1804