MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE STATE and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted the criminal appeal of respondent No. 2 and acquitted him of a murder charge under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested on the ocular account of the deceased's father and brother, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence at 2:00 a.m. near a canal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the High Court's acquittal was based on sound appreciation of evidence. The Court held that the eye-witnesses were mere chance witnesses who failed to provide a plausible reason for their presence at the scene at that hour, and there was no evidence of a light source enabling identification. Furthermore, the motive was unsubstantiated, the recovered weapon was not blood-stained, and the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the High Court's cogent acquittal and dismissed the petition.
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the testimony of eye-witnesses who are deemed chance witnesses and fail to explain their presence at the crime scene at night?
- Whether the absence of a proven source of light at a night-time crime scene invalidates the identification of the accused by eye-witnesses?
- What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery that is not stained with human blood in a murder trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' TANVIRAHMED KHAN, J.--Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 9th May, 2002 whereby Criminal Appeal No,1735 of 2000 filed by respondent No,2, Muhammad Yasin alias Kali was accepted and he was acquitted of the charge.
2. Facts briefly are that F.I.R. No,117 was got registered at the instance of P:W.1, Rafique Ahmed complainant on 11-3-1997 at 4-15 a.m. At Police Station, Chunian, for an occurrence stated to have taken place at 2-00 a.m. Under sections 302/34, P.P.C. For the murder of his son Babar. The matter was investigated. Accordingly challan was submitted against the petitioner. The occurrence was narrated by P.W.1, Rafique Ahmed complainant, the father of the deceased and Azam Mahmood, P.W.3, brother of the deceased. The learned trial Judge through his judgment dated 25th October, 2000 convicted the petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs,20,000 to the heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further two mdnths' imprisonment. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was accorded to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No,1735 of 2000 and the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court after examining the evidence brought on record in-depth passed the impugned judgment acquitting respondent No,2, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the alleged occurrence had taken place on the first night of the lunar month at 2-00 a.m. Near the Nala about 24 acre away from the residence of the, complainant as the deceased in an injured condition was taken out from the same. The eye- witnesses could not advance any plausible reason for their presence at the said place at that time of the night. Even otherwise nothing has been brought on record that there was any source of light in which the eye-witnesses could have identified the accused. They are merely chance witnesses and, the account stated by them does not inspire confidence.
5. The motive part could not be substantiated by the prosecution during the trial. The recovery of alleged Chhuri is of no consequence as the same was not stained with human blood. The medical evidence is also not in line with the ocular account. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to substantiate any justifiable reason for interference in the impugned judgment in which the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has given cogent reasons in recording the acquittal of the respondent.
' Resultantly, for what has been discussed above, criminal petition is dismissed and .
Cited by 8 cases
- Sajid Hussain, Malik Muhammad Saleem vs The State, The State etc. 2023 LHC 5291, 2024 YLR 1349
- Muhammad Irfan Haider & 2 others vs The State & another 2022 LHC 6485
- Muhammad Irfan Haider and 2 others vs State and another PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 244
- Javed alias Jaidi vs State PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1067
- Naveed Asghar and two others vs The State 2021 PLD Supreme Court 600, 2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 258, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 534,
- ZAHID IMRAN and others vs STATE 2006 PLJ SC 701
- ZAHID IMRAN and others vs THE STATE and others 2006 PLD Supreme Court 109
- Mst. Ramzana Bibi vs The State and others 2021 LHC 7877