Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b), 324, 114, 34

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 342, 340(2), 265-C, 161, 164, 512, 544-A, 382-B

SUMMARY Held: Pakistan Penal Code —Section 302/324/114- Testimony of single witness- appreciation of- The Court is duty bound to examine whether the findings of the trial Court are supported by the evidence on record; whether the evidence was appreciated in its correct legal perspective; and whether the prosecution proved its case through reliable and trustworthy material. The role of this Court is not simply to agree or disagree with the trial Court, but to ensure that the conviction is based on solid and reliable evidence, and not on assumptions. It is admitted that the prosecution case mainly depends upon the statement of a single eye-witness. However, it is a settled principle of law that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, even in a murder case, if that witness is found to be truthful and trustworthy. The law does not require a large number of witnesses; rather, it requires that the evidence be credible and convincing. If the sole witness appears natural, consistent, and remains firm during cross-examination, his testimony can be sufficient for conviction. However, where the death penalty has been awarded, the evidence must be examined with great care. The appellate Court must carefully re-evaluate the entire record to ensure that no reasonable doubt has been overlooked. Since human life is involved, the evidence must be weighed very carefully, and the conclusions must be clear and free from uncertainty therefore, to properly decide whether the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant and awarding the death sentence, this Court finds it necessary to re-examine the statements of the witnesses and review the entire evidence again so that no miscarriage of justice has occurred. Pakistan Penal Code —Section 302/324/114- Testimony of single witness- appreciation of- The argument that the injured could speak, he should have lodged the report himself instead of the complainant, however, this argument is not convincing as the medical evidence clearly shows that the injured was not mentally fit to give a proper statement. Furthermore, if the complainant had actually been the attacker, as claimed by the defence, it…