| Case ID |
67b1124d-a944-4245-89c7-c6a945a0c025 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Cr. Appeal No. 395 of 2014 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 22, 2019 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 22, 2019 |
| Decision |
In a landmark judgment delivered on October 22, 2019, the Lahore High Court set aside the conviction and death sentence of Ijaz son of Allah Rakha in Cr. Appeal No. 395 of 2014 and Murder Reference No. 141 of 2017. The Court meticulously analyzed the prosecution’s case, highlighting significant lapses in evidence and procedural irregularities. Chief Justice Mushtaq Ahmad, Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, and Justice Ijaz presided over the case. The appellant, Ijaz, was originally convicted under the Pakistan Penal Code sections 34, 302, and 302(b) for committing Qatl-i-Amd, alongside co-accused who were subsequently acquitted. The Court found that the primary evidence against Ijaz, namely the testimonies of Muhammad Nawaz (PW-8) and Abdul Hameed (PW-10), was highly unreliable due to inconsistent statements and lack of corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the presence of sufficient light at the crime scene, undermining the credibility of the witnesses' ability to identify the assailants accurately. The recovery of a repeater gun from Ijaz was deemed inadmissible as it violated Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Additionally, the delay in conducting post-mortem examinations raised serious doubts about the integrity of the investigation, suggesting potential manipulation to fabricate evidence. The Court emphasized the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,' asserting that false testimony regarding one accused compromises the reliability of evidence against others. Citing numerous precedents, including Muhammad Ashraf v. State (2012 SCMR 419) and Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772), the judges underscored the necessity of upholding the highest standards of proof in criminal cases to ensure justice. Given the substantial reasonable doubt and the failure of the prosecution to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted Ijaz, ordering his immediate release. This judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to due process, equitable legal standards, and the protection of individual rights against wrongful convictions. It also serves as a critical reminder of the importance of credible evidence and the stringent scrutiny required in capital cases to prevent miscarriages of justice. |
| Summary |
In the pivotal case of Cr. Appeal No. 395 of 2014 and Murder Reference No. 141 of 2017, adjudicated by the esteemed Lahore High Court on October 22, 2019, the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a groundbreaking verdict that underscores the critical importance of credible evidence and procedural integrity in the judicial system. The appellant, Ijaz son of Allah Rakha, was initially convicted under Section 34, 302, and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code for the heinous crime of Qatl-i-Amd, alongside several co-accused who were subsequently acquitted. The Court, presided over by Chief Justice Mushtaq Ahmad, Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, and Justice Ijaz, meticulously dissected the prosecution's case, revealing numerous inconsistencies and lapses that ultimately led to the acquittal of the appellant. Central to the Court's decision was the unreliability of the primary evidence presented against Ijaz—the testimonies of Muhammad Nawaz (PW-8) and Abdul Hameed (PW-10). These testimonies were marred by significant discrepancies and lacked independent corroboration, raising serious doubts about their veracity. Moreover, the prosecution's failure to demonstrate the presence of adequate lighting at the crime scene cast further shadows on the reliability of the witnesses' accounts, which were crucial for the identification of the assailants. The Court highlighted the inadmissibility of a repeater gun recovered from Ijaz, citing a blatant violation of Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates proper procedure during evidence collection. Additionally, delays in conducting post-mortem examinations were scrutinized, with the Court suggesting that such delays were indicative of efforts to manipulate the investigation and fabricate evidence. The judgment firmly established the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,' asserting that false testimony about one accused undermines the credibility of evidence against others involved in the same case. By referencing landmark cases such as Muhammad Ashraf v. State (2012 SCMR 419) and Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772), the Court reinforced the judiciary's unwavering commitment to due process and the protection of individual rights against wrongful convictions. The decision also emphasized the necessity of upholding the highest standards of proof in criminal cases, particularly in capital offenses, to prevent miscarriages of justice and ensure that only the truly guilty are convicted and punished. This landmark acquittal not only exonerates Ijaz son of Allah Rakha but also sets a profound precedent for future cases, highlighting the essential role of credible evidence and rigorous procedural adherence in the legal system. The judgment serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement and prosecution bodies about the paramount importance of evidence integrity and the dire consequences of procedural negligence. Furthermore, it underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding justice by meticulously evaluating the reliability of evidence and ensuring that convictions are based on incontrovertible proof, thereby enhancing public trust in the legal system. In conclusion, this case stands as a testament to the Lahore High Court's dedication to justice, equity, and the rule of law, reinforcing the foundational principles that underpin a fair and just society. It advocates for stringent judicial scrutiny and serves as a beacon for upholding the sanctity of truth in legal proceedings, ultimately contributing to the evolution of a more transparent and accountable judicial framework in Pakistan. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Ijaz son of Allah Rakha,
Akhtar son of Muhammad Rafique,
Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Nawaz,
Aslam son of Allah Bakhsh,
Muhammad Shahzad son of Allah Rakha,
Muhammad Irshad son of Allah Rakha
|
| Judges |
CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD,
JUSTICE SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM,
JUSTICE IJAZ
|
| Lawyers |
Mudassar Altaf Quershi,
Ch. Muhammad Akbar, Deputy Prosecutor General,
Aamir Ali Safeer
|
| Petitioners |
IJAZ
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE,
ANOTHERS
|
| Citations |
2020 SLD 1968,
2020 YLR 1620
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Rafiq v. State 2014 SCMR 1698,
Usman alias Kaloo v. State 2017 SCMR 622,
Nasrullah alias Nasro v. The State 2017 SCMR 724,
Azhar Mehmood and others v. The State 2017 SCMR 135,
Arshad Khan v. The State 2017 SCMR 564,
Abdul Jabbar alias Jabbari v. The State 2017 SCMR 1155 rel.,
Muhammad Ashraf v. State 2012 SCMR 419,
Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772,
Muhammad Arif v. The State 2019 SCMR 631 rel.,
Khalid alias Khalidi and 2 others v. The State 2012 SCMR 327,
Mian Sohail Ahmed and others v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 956,
Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State 2019 SCMR 1068 rel.,
PLD 2019 SC 527 rel.,
Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345,
Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State 2008 SCMR 1221,
Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230,
Muhammad Zaman v. The State 2014 SCMR 749
|
| Laws Involved |
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860,
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
34,
302,
302(b),
103
|