Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 40‑R of 1980, decided on 21st March, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court. dated 9th June, 1980 in Cr. A. 786 of 1979).

---Art. 185(3)‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑Murder‑Convic tion resting on evidence of one solitary eye‑witness‑Finding of Courts below that evidence of such witness was corroborated by motive, requiring examination because it was only that eye‑witness alone who gave evidence about motive‑Leave to appeal granted to examine question whether conviction of accused in circumstances, was in accordance with principles laid down by Supreme Court for appraisal of evidence in such cases.

Yusuf Ali Khan, Bar‑at‑Law and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing 21st March, 1981.

The petitioner's conviction for murder rests on the evidence of a solitary eye‑witness and his evidence of the recoveries was rejected even by the trial Court. But the trial Court was of the view that the ocular evidence was corroborated by evidence of motive. And, as the High Court agreed with this view, it dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Hence this petition for leave.

The finding of the Courts below that the evidence of Muhammad Yusuf was corroborated by that of motive requires examination because it was Muhammad Yusuf alone, who gave evidence about motive and, because the murder of Muhammad Yousuf's brother attributed to the petitioner had taken place long before the acquittal of the deceased's brother for the murder of the petitioner's father. We, therefore, grant leave to examine the question whether the conviction of the petitioner is in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court for the appraisal of evidence in criminal cases.

M. Z. M. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.