Qaiser Mehmood / Ishtiaq Ahmad v. The State and another

Background

Background

Supreme Court says cross-examination attaches when chief begins, but upholds Qaiser Mehmood’s life sentence on the remaining reliable evidence.

The prosecution gave up the deceased’s wife after recording her chief. The Supreme Court condemned that denial of the defence opportunity, but accepted the remaining two eyewitnesses and medical corroboration and refused both the convict’s and complainant’s petitions.

Legal questions

Legal questions

When does cross-examination become a vested right, and did giving up PW-11 after chief require interference with this conviction?

Court holding

What the Court decided

The right attaches when examination-in-chief begins, not only when it finishes. A party cannot unilaterally abandon the witness to defeat it; any request requires judicial scrutiny. Giving up PW-11 was a grave error, but the remaining reliable eyewitness and medical evidence sustained this conviction.

Final outcome

Final outcome

Both petitions dismissed and leave refused. Qaiser Mehmood’s life sentence and compensation remained; the complainant’s request for enhancement failed. No retrial or remand ordered. Hearing date: 30 September 2026; separate pronouncement date not entered in the supplied copy.

Practical effect

What the decision means in practice

Both petitions dismissed and leave refused. Qaiser Mehmood’s life sentence and compensation remained; the complainant’s request for enhancement failed. No retrial or remand ordered. Hearing date: 30 September 2026; separate pronouncement date not entered in the supplied copy.

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

Key legal principles

Key legal principles

• Cross-examination attaches when examination-in-chief commences, even with the first testimony about the facts.
• Entering the box or taking the oath was distinguished from beginning chief.
• A party cannot unilaterally abandon a testifying witness to defeat cross-examination; any request requires judicial scrutiny.
• Giving up PW-11 was a grave error but did not defeat this conviction supported by other reliable evidence.
• Both petitions were dismissed; life imprisonment remained and enhancement was refused.
• The supplied hearing date is not recorded as a confirmed pronouncement date.