GHULAM SARWAR vs FIDA HUSSAIN and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of prosecution witnesses and the absence of medical evidence. The Supreme Court reviewed the trial record and noted that the complainant, who initially expressed mere suspicion in the F.I.R., had materially altered his stance in court to claim he was an eyewitness. Finding the prosecution evidence untrustworthy and noting the lack of medical evidence to establish the cause of death, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal. The ratio decidendi affirms that where prosecution evidence is inconsistent and unreliable, and essential proof such as medical evidence is missing, an acquittal by the High Court will not be interfered with. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not disturb an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.
- Does the material alteration of a witness's version from suspicion in the F.I.R. to eyewitness testimony in court render their evidence untrustworthy?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained in the absence of medical evidence establishing the cause of death?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment passed by the High Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 14-3-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that vide F.I.R. Exh.P.A. Under section 302/34, P.P.C.
Registered on the complaint of Ghulam Sarwar P.W., wherein he has expressed suspicion that Bashir Ahmed his brother has been murdered by Fida Hussain, Faqir Bakhsh, Nazeer Ahmed respondents whose dead body was found lying in a watercourse situated near Chah Banjar Sakhani Wala. During course of investigation blood-stained earth and vomiting waste was recovered. The respondents were arrested on 12-11-1998. Upon completion of investigation they were tried as they did not plead guilty to the charge, as such prosecution led evidence to substantiate accusation against them. Learned trial Court after having gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution including P.Ws. Ghulam Sarwar, Shimla, Allah Bakhsh and Ghulam Akbar came to the conclusion that respondents are guilty for the commission of the offence as such they were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs,50,000 each and further undergo S.I. For six months in default in the payment of fine. The respondents preferred appeal before the High Court which has been accepted and they were acquitted of the charges vide impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that overwhelming incriminating evidence is available on record to connect the respondents with commission of the offence. But the learned High Court without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly acquitted them of the charges without any strong legal justification.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the evidence available on record. It may be noted that in F.I.R. (Exh.P.A.) the complainant has expressed his suspicion about the involvement of the respondents in the commission of the offence but when he appeared in the Court he had changed his version altogether as if he had himself witnessed the incident. Same is the position of the other witnesses. Therefore, the learned High Court after having scanning the evidence carefully came to the conclusion that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not trustworthy. It is important to note that learned High Court had also taken into consideration that no medical evidence was available to establish the cause of death of the deceased. Therefore, in such view of the matter we are of the opinion that the acquittal of the respondents recorded by the High Court warrants no interference in view of the principle laid down in the judgments reported as Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 and Sultan Ahmed v. Ghulam Raza and 2 others 1995 SCM R 664.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we see no substance in this petition has such same is dismissed and leave declined.