KHAN MUHAMMAD vs STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, arising from FIR No. 111 dated 19.5.2002 registered at Police Station Sahuka. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of murder through ocular and circumstantial evidence where eye-witnesses either turned hostile or admitted their testimony was hearsay. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt as the key eyewitness testimony was unreliable or hearsay, rendering supporting circumstantial evidence such as weapon recovery and medical evidence inconsequential. The Court laid down the principle that the mere occurrence of an incident inside an accused's house is insufficient to sustain a conviction without reliable substantive ocular or forensic evidence connecting the accused directly to the crime.
- Whether the recovery of a weapon alone is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
- Does the mere fact that an occurrence took place inside the house of the accused prove his guilt without independent evidence?
- What is the evidentiary value of an eyewitness testimony when the witness admits in cross-examination that the occurrence was narrated to him by another person?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 308, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Khan Muhammad appellant has been convicted under Section 302 PPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and directed to pay Rs, 300,000,/- as Diyat to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 308 PPC vide judgment dated 24.3.2003 passed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala in case FIR No, 111 dated 19.5.2002 Police Station Sahuka Tehsil Burewala.
2. The occurrence took place on 19.5.2002 at about 1.00 p.m. in the house of Khan Muhammad appellant. According to the prosecution version Mst. Manzoor Mai wife of Khan Muhammad appellant-accused had gone to Lahore to see her relatives about eight days prior to the occurrence and had returned to her house about 2/3 days prior to the occurrence. Khan Muhammad suspected that Mst. Manzoor Mai had eloped with her relative Muhammad Nawaz. At the relevant time Muhammad Ramzan, father of Mst. Manzoor Mai, Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) and Manzoor Ahmad (P.W.7) were present in the house when Khan Muhammad appellant got flared up and started giving hatchet blows to Mst. Manzoor Mai, deceased. Due to fear the P.Ws. could not rescue the deceased. Khan Muhammad fled away from the spot. Manzoor Mai was being removed to the hospital when she died on the way. Muhammad Ramzan reported the matter to the police on the same day at 3:00 p.m.
3. Zulfiqar Ali S.I. reached the spot and completed the usual investigation. He arrested Khan Muhammad accused on 29.5.2002 and recovered hatchet P.5 at the instance of the accused from his house. He recorded the statements of the P.Ws, got prepared site plans and lastly submitted his report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
4. At the commencement of the trial the accused was formally charge sheeted by Arfan Ahmad Saeed, Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in order to substantiate the charge. The accused in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation. He did not produce any evidence in his defence. The learned trial Court while concluding the trial held the appellant guilty under Section 302(b), PPC but sentenced under Section 308 PPC. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Muhammad Bashir (P.W.4) and Manzoor Ahmad (P.W.7) were expected to furnish the ocular account of the occurrence but they have exonerated the appellant as such it was a case of no evidence and the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the occurrence took place in the house of Khan Muhammad appellant and this circumstance fully corroborated by the recovery of hatchet P.5 made at the instance of Khan Muhammad accused is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
7. I have made re-appraisal of the entire material in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The statements of Ahmad Bakhsh (P.W.1), Muhammad Nawaz, constable (P.W.2), Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.3), Nazir Ahmad (P.W.5), Qasim Ali (P.W.9) are more or less of formal nature. The fate of the case hinged on the testimony of Muhammad Basnir (P.W.4) and Manzoor Ahmad (P.W.7). Muhammad Bashir (P.W.4) in his examination in-chief did depose about the occurrence but in cross-examination he disclosed that the occurrence was in fact narrated to him by his deceased father Muhammad Ramzan, whereas Manzoor Ahmad (P.W.7) was declared hostile as he had not deposed about the occurrence. In the absence of any evidence the recovery of hatchet P.5 A and the medical evidence furnished by Lady Doctor Naheed Malik (P.W.8) becomes in consequential. The occurrence has certainly taken place in the house of Khan Muhammad appellant but this fact alone does not prove that Mst. Manzoor Mai was assaulted and injured by Khan Muhammad appellant. The result is that the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus miserably. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court is set aside. The appellant stands acquitted. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.