Umar Hayat v. The State; Ayesha Bibi v. Muhammad Zaman alias Adnan and others

Case summary

The judgment in brief

The Supreme Court acquitted a murder convict where the same materially contradictory eyewitness account had already been disbelieved for co-accused and no independent evidence distinguished his case.

Question of law

The legal question

Whether Umar Hayat's murder conviction could be maintained on a materially contradictory eyewitness account where co-accused had received benefit of doubt on the same type of defects and no weapon, motive or independent corroboration reliably distinguished his case.

Court holding

What the Court decided

The contradictions concerning Umar Hayat's alleged firing and the location of injuries were material and resembled those that led to the co-accused's acquittal. With no weapon recovery, proved motive or independent corroboration, his case could not safely be separated from the same doubtful ocular account. The grain-from-chaff principle was inapplicable because no reliable part against him could be isolated.

Result

Outcome and directions

Umar Hayat's jail petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. His conviction and life sentence were set aside, and he was acquitted by benefit of doubt with a direction for immediate release unless required in another case. The complainant's petition challenging the acquittal of Muhammad Zaman alias Adnan and Altaf Hussain was dismissed, and leave was refused.

Practical effect

What the decision means in practice

Umar Hayat's jail petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. His conviction and life sentence were set aside, and he was acquitted by benefit of doubt with a direction for immediate release unless required in another case. The complainant's petition challenging the acquittal of Muhammad Zaman alias Adnan and Altaf Hussain was dismissed, and leave was refused.

This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.