| Case ID |
37900ace-2801-4758-9928-e91d188e542d |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 07, 2018 |
| Hearing Date |
Feb 07, 2018 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Muhammad Mansha, overturning the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts. The court found that the trial court had acquitted three co-accused who were said to have actively participated in the crime. The High Court's reliance on witness testimonies, which contained dishonest improvements, led to a conviction that was not sustainable without corroborative evidence. The decision emphasized that when doubts arise regarding witness credibility, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. As a result, Muhammad Mansha was acquitted of the charges against him. |
| Summary |
In the case of Muhammad Mansha vs. The State, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed serious concerns regarding the integrity of witness testimonies and the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings. The court scrutinized the convictions stemming from a trial where the accused was found guilty of qatl-i-amd (murder) under sections 302(b) and 34 of the Penal Code. The trial court's decision had been based on testimonies that were later deemed to contain dishonest improvements, rendering them unreliable. The Supreme Court underscored the principle that if an eyewitness's credibility is compromised, the accused must be granted the benefit of doubt. This landmark ruling not only highlights the importance of credible evidence in the judicial process but also reinforces the legal standard that it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than for one innocent person to be wrongfully convicted. Keywords such as 'Supreme Court', 'Pakistan', 'criminal law', 'witness credibility', and 'benefit of doubt' are essential in understanding the broader implications of this case in the legal landscape. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Manzoor Ahmad Malik,
Sardar Tariq Masood
|
| Lawyers |
Aftab Ahmad Khan,
Ch. Muhammad Waheed Khan
|
| Petitioners |
Muhammad Mansha
|
| Respondents |
The State
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 700,
2018 SCMR 772
|
| Other Citations |
Amir Zaman v. Mahboob and others 1985 SCMR 685,
Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230,
Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State 2008 SCMR 1221,
Hashim Qasim and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 986,
Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11,
Sardar Bibi and another v. Munir Ahmad and others 2017 SCMR 344,
Shahbaz v. The State 2016 SCMR 1763,
Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345,
Khalid Javed and another v. The State 2003 SCMR 1419,
Muhammad Zaman v. The State 2014 SCMR 749,
Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others 2015 SCMR 1142,
Akhtar Ali and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 6,
Muhammad Ali v. The State 2015 SCMR 137,
Sarfraz alias Sappi v. The State 2000 SCMR 1758,
Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State 2004 SCMR 1185,
Mohammad Shame Ahmad v. The State PLD 1981 SC 472,
Syed Saeed Mohammad Shah and another v. The State 1993 SCMR 550,
Mohammad Saleem v. Mohammad Azam 2011 SCMR 474,
Muhammad Sharif and another v. The State 1997 SCMR 866,
Mehmood Ahmad and 3 others v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 127,
Dildar Hussain v. Muhammad Afzaal alias Chala and others PLD 2004 SC 663,
Abdul Majeed v. Mulazim Hussain and others PLD 2007 SC 637
|
| Laws Involved |
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
|
| Sections |
302(b),
302(c),
34
|