2001 PLP 2005 (SCMR)

S‑‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Anti‑Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(1)(a)‑‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑E‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), MP Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Contentions were that testimony of eye‑witness did not inspire confidence and their evidence could not be believed as they were interested and chance witnesses; that the identification parade having been held after 530 days could not be used as corroborative of ocular testimony; that confession being a result of torture and having been made at a time when the accused was arrested m some other case could not be used in this case and that neither the recoveries had been proved in accordance with law nor those were sufficient to connect the accused with the offence‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to the accused by the Supreme Court to consider the contentions and to re‑appraise and evaluate the evidence on record to determine as to whether the accused had been convicted and sentenced keeping in view the principles laid down by Supreme Court from time to time for safe administration of justice. Azizullah Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Sarwar Khan, Additional Advocate‑General, Sindh for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd October, 2000. Petitioner was convicted under section 7(l)(a) of the Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997, read with section 302, P.P.C. on three counts and was sentenced to death on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000 on each count. He was also convicted under section 13‑E Arms Ordinance, 1965 and was sentenced to 7 years R.I. and Rs.10,000 fine, or in default S.I. for six months. These convictions and sentences were confirmed by the High Court in appeals through the impugned judgment.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the testimony of the eye‑witnesses is not confidence inspiring and that their evidence could not be believed being interested and chance witnesses. He also submitted that the identification parade was held after 530 days, therefore, it could not be used as corroborative of ocular testimony. He also criticised confession as a result of torture and also that it could not be used in this case as it was made at a tine when the petitioner was arrested in some other cases. He also argued that neither the recoveries have been proved in accordance with law nor those were sufficient to connect the petitioner with the offence.

3. We grant leave to consider the above submissions and to re‑appraise and evaluate the evidence on record to determine; as to whether, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced keeping in view the principle laid down by this Court from time to time for safe administration of justice. Cr. M. No. 132 of 2000. This application will be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. N.H.Q./S‑126/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.