Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/201/34‑‑Petition against acquittal‑‑Chance witnesses‑‑Appraisal of evidence in accordance with well‑established principles‑‑Ocular testimony of chance witnesses and recovery of incriminating articles disbelieved‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt by High Court and acquitted‑‑Order impugned‑‑Supreme Court being of opinion that High Court had appraised evidence in accordance with well‑established principles and there being no ground for interference, refused leave to appeal.
Haji Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Choudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both petitions.)
Nemo for Respondent No. 1 (in P. No. 635/80)
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1 (in P. No. 636/80).
Irshad Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for the State (in both Petitions) .
ORDER
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑ There are two connected criminal petitions for leave to appeal before us namely Criminal Petition No.635 of 1980 and Criminal Petition No.636 of 1980. Both of them have been filed against Mst. Sabran respondent and Muhammad Ali respondent, and are directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore acquitting Mst. Sabran respondent and Muhammad Ali respondents. As these petitions arise out of the same judgment, these are being taken up and disposed of together.
Briefly the facts are that Mst. Sabran and Muhammad Ali respondents were tried by the Sessions Judge, Jhang under section 201/302/34, PPC for the murder of Muhammad Saeed deceased husband of Mst. Sabran respondent and vide judgment dated 2nd February, 1978 Muhammad Ali respondent was sentenced to death plus fine under sections 302/34, PPC and to three years' RI plus fine under sections 201/34, PPC, whereas Mst. Sabran respondent was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine under sections 302/34, PPC and to three years' RI plus fine under sections 201/34 PPC. The Lahore High Court Lahore vide its Judgment dated 23rd October, 1979 in appeal acquitted both the respondents giving them the benefit of doubt.
The occurrence took place at 11 p.m. on 15th April, 1976 in the area of Ratta Matta, Police Station Qadir Pur, District Jhang. First Information Report was lodged by Azmat PW at 10 a.m. on 16th April, 1976. The respondents were arrested on 16th April, 1976. From Muhammad Ali respondent was recovered blood‑stained Toka and blood‑stained Chadar but these recoveries had not been relied upon. There are two witnesses of the occurrence namely Azmat and Sultan PWs, who had also not been relied upon as they were chance witnesses. The deceased had four injuries on his person caused with sharp‑edged weapon. The motive is that Mst. Sabran respondent had illicit relationship with Muhammad Ali respondent and that she alongwith her paramour murdered her husband Muhammad Saeed deceased. The prosecution version is that Azmat and Sultan PWs were returning to the village at 11 p.m. on the fateful night when they heard alarm from the Jhugi of the deceased. They saw Muhammad Ali respondent injuring the deceased with Toka while Mst. Sabran respondent was holding his legs. Then they saw that both the respondents carried the dead body of the deceased on a cot to a nearby cattle shed and then Muhammad Ali respondent set fire to it in order to destroy the evidence. The trial Court seems to have relied upon the ocular testimony and also considered the recoveries as reliable but the appellate Court arrived at the conclusion that the ocular testimony did not inspire confidence as the two witnesses were mere chance witnesses who had no reason to be passing by the Jhugi of the deceased at 11 p.m. on the fateful night. Therefore they were disbelieved by the appellate court. The trial court also considered the recovery evidence as unreliable for the reason that if the two respondents were careful enough to destroy the dead body of the deceased by setting it afire then they, at least Muhammad Ali respondent, could have not kept with him blood‑stained Toka and clothes.
Learned counsel for the petitioners‑complainants argued that the eye‑witnesses should have been relied upon in the instant case and that the recoveries should have also been believed, but in our view the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court, Lahore appraised the evidence in this case in accordance with the well‑established principles, and therefore there is no ground for interference. In that view of the matter both the Criminal Petitions (Nos. 635 and 636 of 1980) are hereby dismissed.
M.I. /M‑114/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.
0 Comments