| Case ID |
231e6fe7-13aa-4827-a9d6-75f9be184da1 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 361-J of 2015 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 25, 2019 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 25, 2019 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court, presided over by Justice Farooq Haider, has allowed the criminal appeal filed by Khursheed Ahmad. After thorough examination of the evidence presented, the court found that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case against the appellant. Key factors influencing this decision include the lack of credible eyewitness testimonies and the inability of the prosecution to provide independent corroboration for the charges. The court also highlighted the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,' emphasizing that if any witness is found to be deceitful, the credibility of the entire case is compromised. Consequently, the conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Khursheed Ahmad by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, have been set aside. The appellant is hereby acquitted and shall be released immediately unless required in another ongoing case. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Khursheed Ahmad versus State, held in the Lahore High Court, the appellant, Khursheed Ahmad, successfully appealed against his conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The case revolved around the allegations of murder of Mumtaz Ahmad and Mst. Zohra Mai, where Khursheed Ahmad was initially sentenced to life imprisonment. Key legal aspects examined included Sections 34, 302, and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, as well as Sections 342, 382B, and 544A of the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898).
Central to the appeal was the prosecution's failure to present credible and corroborative evidence. The court scrutinized the reliance on medical evidence, which only supported the occurrence of injuries without identifying the perpetrator. Eyewitness testimonies, deemed chance witnesses, lacked the reliability needed to sustain the conviction. The defense successfully argued under the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,' highlighting inconsistencies in witness statements and the prosecution's inability to maintain the integrity of its case after the acquittal of co-accused individuals like Ghulam Rasool and Feroz.
The appellant's legal representation, led by Advocate Malik Dost Muhammad, effectively dismantled the prosecution's claims, pointing out procedural lapses and the absence of independent corroboration. The court referenced several precedents, including cases like 'Javaid Akbar versus Muhammad Amjad,' 'Shahbaz versus The State,' and 'Haroon Shafique versus The State and others,' to reinforce the decision's foundation on established legal principles.
This case underscores the critical importance of robust evidence in criminal prosecutions and the judiciary's role in ensuring fairness and justice. By setting aside the previous judgment, the Lahore High Court reaffirmed the necessity for the prosecution to meet stringent evidentiary standards, thereby safeguarding the rights of the accused and upholding the integrity of the legal system. The decision has significant implications for future criminal appeals, emphasizing meticulous evidence evaluation and the protection against wrongful convictions.
For legal professionals and scholars, this case serves as a pivotal reference on the application of the 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' doctrine, the evaluation of witness credibility, and the interpretation of procedural laws under the Pakistan Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. It also highlights the strategic importance of effective legal representation in appellate courts and the judiciary's commitment to rectifying miscarriages of justice when evident shortcomings in the prosecution's case are identified. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Muhammad Arif,
Ghulam Rasool,
Riaz Ahmad,
Muhammad Ramzan,
Abdul Ghani,
Muhammad Khan,
Rashid Ahmad,
Khursheed Ahmad,
Malik Dost Muhammad,
Malik Mudassir Ali,
Farooq Haider,
Mumtaz Ahmad,
Mst. Zohra Mai,
Feroz,
Sajjad Hussain,
Syed Ali Raza Shah,
Dr. Zubair Iqbal,
Lady Dr. Khalida Anwar,
Syed Nazir Hussain Shah
|
| Judges |
Farooq Haider
|
| Lawyers |
Malik Dost Muhammad,
Malik Mudassir Ali
|
| Petitioners |
Khursheed Ahmad
|
| Respondents |
State
|
| Citations |
2019 SLD 2143,
2019 PLJ 1212
|
| Other Citations |
2017 Cr.LJ 1,
2018 SCMR 2039,
2003 SCMR 1419,
2015 SCMR 1142,
2019 SCMR 274,
2013 SCMR 383,
2016 SCMR 1763,
2018 SCMR 326,
2018 SCMR 2118,
Javaid Akbar versus Muhammad Amjad and Jameel @ Jeela and another,
Shahbaz versus The State,
Haroon Shafique versus The State and others,
Khalid Javed and another versus The State,
Mst. Sughra Begum and another versus Qaiser Pervez and others,
Altaf Hussain versus The State,
Tariq Pervez versus The State,
Muhammad Akram versus The State,
Muhammad Zaman versus The State and others,
Muhammad Mansha versus The State,
Abdul Jabbar and another versus The State,
Mst. Asia Bibi versus The State and others,
Azhar Iqbal versus The State,
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 200 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 238-L of 2013
|
| Laws Involved |
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860,
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
34,
302,
302(b),
342,
382B,
544A
|