witnesses are found to have provided false or unreliable testimony regarding some accused, their testimony cannot be used to convict other accused unless it is strongly corroborated by independent. evidence.

judgment is that when witnesses are found to have provided false or unreliable testimony regarding some accused,

اگر گواہ بعض ملزمان کے بارے میں جھوٹے یا ناقابلِ اعتماد ثابت ہو جائے تو انہی گواہوں کی شہادت دیگر ملزمان کے خلاف بھی

1۔ مقدمے کا بنیادی اصول (Key Legal Principle)

ا) اگر گواہ بعض ملزمان کے بارے میں جھوٹے یا ناقابلِ اعتماد ثابت ہو جائیں

ب) تو انہی گواہوں کی شہادت دیگر ملزمان کے خلاف بھی قابلِ اعتماد نہیں رہتی

ج) الا یہ کہ اس شہادت کی مضبوط اور آزاد ذرائع سے تصدیق (Strong Independent Corroboration) موجود ہو

2۔ اس مقدمے میں عدالت کا فیصلہ شدہ نکتہ

ا) گواہوں نے بعض شریکِ ملزمان کے خلاف جھوٹی اور غیر معتبر گواہی دی

ب) اسی بنیاد پر شریکِ ملزمان کو ٹرائل کورٹ نے بری کیا

ج) لہٰذا انہی گواہوں کی غیر مصدقہ شہادت کی بنیاد پر فرحت ریاض کو سزا دینا قانوناً درست نہ تھا

3۔ گواہی کے ناقابلِ اعتماد ہونے کی وجوہات

ا) تمام ملزمان کو ایک جیسا اور تفصیلی کردار منسوب کیا گیا

ب) ایف آئی آر میں غیر معمولی حد تک ’’فوٹوگرافک‘‘ تفصیل دی گئی

ج) عینی شہادت میڈیکل شواہد سے مطابقت نہیں رکھتی تھی

4۔ طبی شہادت (Medical Evidence) کا تضاد

ا) ڈاکٹر کے مطابق موت تمام چوٹوں کے مجموعی اثر سے ہوئی

ب) فرحت ریاض کے ذمے صرف سوتا کے وار منسوب تھے

ج) منسوب کردہ مخصوص چوٹ کو مہلک (Fatal) قرار نہیں دیا گیا

5۔ قانونی اصول (Supreme Court Precedents)

ا) PLD 1985 SC 11

جب ایک جیسے کردار پر بعض ملزمان بری ہو جائیں تو دیگر ملزمان کے خلاف بھی وہی گواہی قابلِ قبول نہیں رہتی جب تک آزاد تصدیق نہ ہو

ب) PLD 1993 SC 251

اگر گواہ بہتان، اضافہ یا بہتری (Improvement) کرے تو اس کی گواہی انتہائی احتیاط سے پرکھی جائے گی

6۔ سپریم کورٹ کا حتمی نتیجہ

ا) لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ درست قرار دیا گیا

ب) فرحت ریاض کی بریت برقرار رکھی گئی

ج) مدعی کی درخواست بے بنیاد قرار دے کر مسترد کر دی گئی

Must read judgement

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

MR. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI

MR. JUSTICE MUSARRAT HILALI

MR. JUSTICE NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN

Criminal Petition No.1390-L of 2013

(Against judgment dated 18.11.2013 passed by the

Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.

159/09)

Muhammad Iqbal

…

Petitioner

versus

The State

and Farhat Riaz

…

Respondents

For the Petitioner

Sh. Irfan Akram, ASC

(via video link Lahore)

For Respondent No.2

Mr. S.M. Nazim, ASC

(via video link Lahore)

For the State

Mr. Irfan Zia,

Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab

Date of Hearing

18.4.2024.

JUDGMENT

Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. Through this petition filed

under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of

Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner/complainant has called in question

the legality of the judgment dated 18.11.2013 passed by the

learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby

appeal filed by respondent No.2, Farhat Riaz was allowed and

death sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court vide

judgment dated 30.01.2009 was set aside; he was acquitted of the

charge of murder and the Murder Reference was answered in the

negative. It is deemed appropriate to mention here that co-accused

Cr.P. No.1390-L of 2013

-:2:-

charged for the murder of Bashir Ahmad (deceased) were also

acquitted by the learned trial Court.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as

well as the learned Law Officer at length and have carefully

scanned the material available on the record.

Precisely facts of case as disclosed by the complainant

Muhammad Iqbal in private complaint are that on 22.11.2005 at

about 11:00 am, his father Bashir Ahmad (deceased) was coming

from his Dera to his house on a bicycle. When he reached Sikandar

Gadhi, all of a sudden Farhat Riaz, respondent No.2, along with six

others, ambushed in canal Shahpur Branch, came out and started

ruthless beating his father with the respective weapons i.e. sota,

sarya, hockey etc. This incident was witnessed by the complainant

and his brother Muhammad Younis (PW-2). The motive behind the

occurrence was the pending litigation inter se the parties.

The incident taken place on 22.11.2005 at 11:00 am

which was reported to the police on the same day at about 1:30

pm. The case was lodged under Sections 324/148/149/109 PPC

but vide case diary No.1, offence under Section 302 PPC was

substituted to Section 324 PPC. After thorough investigation, the

police declared respondent No.2, Farhat Riaz guilty of the charge,

whereas remaining accused were found innocent.

Being dissatisfied with the police investigation, the

complainant filed a private complaint against all the nominated

accused persons and the learned trial Court summoned all the

accused persons and formal charge was framed on 25.11.2006.

The prosecution in its support produced as many as 11 witnesses

and one court witness was also produced. The statements of the

accused persons were also recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. At

Cr.P. No.1390-L of 2013

-:3:-

the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court held respondent

No.2 Farhat Riaz guilty of the charge of murder of Bashir Ahmad

deceased and sentenced him to death with fine of Rs.3,00,000/-.

However, the remaining accused persons were acquitted of the

charge by the trial Court.

According to the prosecution story, seven persons had

beaten up deceased Bashir Ahmad and this incident was seen by

PW-1, Muhammad Iqbal and PW-2, Muhammad Younis, who are

the sons of the deceased. No firearm was used in the scuffle,

except danda sotas but strange enough, being sons they did not

come forward to rescue their father and remained as spectators.

Five acquitted co-accused were implicated without any

shred of evidence to commit the murder and it was for want of

proof that they were acquitted by the trial Court thus, it appears

that noose was thrown much wider, implicating falsely innocent

persons. The motive was set up by the prosecution that there was

a litigation pending inter se the parties and the deceased was

pursuing the case, however no proof was brought on the record

that the deceased was party to that litigation. Thus, the learned

High Court has rightly disbelieved the motive.

The striking feature of the case is that in the FIR

complete photographic narration of the entire tragedy has been

given so much so acquitted accused and the respondent were

attributed causing specific injuries with danda sotas etc. With

such degree of accuracy each and every detail of the incident was

given. This doubt of reasonable nature and substance would

strongly suggest that the complainant and the other eye-witnesses

were not present at the spot. Beside this, ocular testimony was not

Cr.P. No.1390-L of 2013

-:4:-

in line with the documentary evidence, especially the medical

evidence. According to the opinion of Dr. Noor-ul-Ameen (PW-6) the

death was caused due to collective effect of all injuries, whereas

respondent No.2, Farhat Riaz was attributed with sota blows. In

his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C, Farhat Riaz has taken a

plea that the deceased was injured by unknown persons and while

being shifted to hospital he fell down from rikshaw and got more

injuries. The learned High Court has observed that the injury

specifically attributed to the respondent No.2 as injury No.8 on the

body of the deceased about which the medical officer has described

as multiple abrasion in the area of 7 ½ cm X 7 ½ cm, this injury

has not been declared by the doctor as fatal .

Whenever witnesses are found to have falsely deposed

with regard to the involvement of one co-accused then, ordinarily,

they cannot be relied upon qua the other co-accused unless their

testimony is sufficiently corroborated through strong corroboratory

evidence, coming from unimpeachable source, is a deeply

entrenched and cardinal principle of justice. We do not find a

single iota of corroboratory evidence to substantiate the tainted

evidence of the same set of witnesses with regard to the

involvement of the respondent in the crime, hence recording

conviction of the respondent No.2 on the same evidence was

absolutely unjustified. Hence, the learned High Court has rightly

acquitted respondent No.2 and set aside the judgment of the Trial

Court.

In the case reported as Ghulam Sikandar versus

Mamaraz Khan (PLD 1985 SC 11), it was held that:-

“When witnesses are disbelieved qua the acquitted co-accused

to whom same and similar role was attributed then they shall

not be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused unless

Cr.P. No.1390-L of 2013

-:5:-

they are strongly corroborated by evidence coming from

independent source.”

Similarly, in the case reported as Munawar Ali v. The State (PLD

1993 SC 251), it was ordained that:-

“When the eye witness compromises his integrity and makes a

false statement by way of addition or improvement in his

deposition and on that account one or the more accused in that

case are acquitted, then in such situation great care and

caution is to be exercised in dealing with the evidence of such

witness for the purpose of its evaluation in respect of conviction

of the other accused and is to be accepted only when it is

supported by independent corroboratory evidence.”

10.

While rendering judgment the learned High Court has

taken into consideration all aspects of the matter, factual as well

as legal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out

any infirmity or illegality on the record which could persuade us to

take a view other than the High Court. Consequently, this petition

lacking in merit is dismissed. Leave is declined.

Judge

Islamabad, the

18th April, 2024

Approved for reporting

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.