Muhammad Hussain V. The State,
MLD 2018 1033 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved Muhammad Hussain, who was convicted by an Anti-Terrorism Court in Quetta for his role in a shooting that killed two men and injured another, following a business dispute. He was initially tried in absentia and sentenced to death. After his arrest, an earlier appeal succeeded in getting that conviction set aside, and the case was sent back for a fresh trial.
During the retrial, a key witness who had survived the shooting but later died had her earlier statement (recorded during the absentia trial) placed on record under a law that allows such statements when a witness has since died. The defense argued this evidence shouldn't count because it came from a trial that had already been overturned, but the High Court disagreed, noting the earlier proceedings were still valid judicial proceedings and the defense lawyer had cross-examined the witness at the time.
The Court also found that a different witness, who only came forward three months after the incident with no good explanation for the delay, could not be trusted. However, the statement of the deceased injured witness, backed by medical evidence and recovered physical evidence, was reliable enough to sustain the conviction.
Because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive, the Court treated this as a mitigating factor. It upheld Hussain's conviction but reduced his sentence from death to life imprisonment.
یہ مقدمہ محمد حسین سے متعلق ہے جنہیں انسدادِ دہشت گردی کی عدالت، کوئٹہ نے ایک فائرنگ کے واقعے میں ملوث ہونے کے جرم میں سزا سنائی تھی، جس میں کاروباری تنازعے کے نتیجے میں دو افراد ہلاک اور ایک زخمی ہوا تھا۔ ابتدا میں ان کا ٹرائل ان کی غیر موجودگی میں ہوا تھا جس میں انہیں سزائے موت سنائی گئی۔ گرفتاری کے بعد، ایک سابقہ اپیل میں وہ سزا کالعدم قرار دے دی گئی اور مقدمہ ازسرِنو سماعت کے لیے واپس بھیج دیا گیا۔
دوبارہ سماعت کے دوران، ایک اہم گواہ جو فائرنگ میں زخمی ہو کر بچ گئی تھیں مگر بعد میں انتقال کر گئیں، ان کا وہ بیان ریکارڈ پر لایا گیا جو غیر موجودگی کے ٹرائل کے دوران قلم بند کیا گیا تھا۔ یہ عمل اس قانون کے تحت کیا گیا جو ایسی صورت میں سابقہ بیان کو قابلِ قبول قرار دیتا ہے جب گواہ انتقال کر چکا ہو۔ دفاع نے دلیل دی کہ یہ شہادت قابلِ اعتبار نہیں