Mst. AMEERAN BIBI vs GUL MUHAMMAD and 4 others
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment dated 26-6-2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the accused respondents were acquitted under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the propriety of acquittal under section 265-K when the cross-examination of a key eye-witness remained incomplete and whether the ocular account conflicted with the medical evidence. The court held that the trial court rightly acquitted the respondents since the medical evidence, including the post-mortem report and negative chemical examiner report regarding viscera, clearly conflicted with the ocular account, indicating no probability of the accused being convicted. The key principle laid down is that a criminal court may acquit an accused at any stage under section 265-K if a thorough review reveals no probability of conviction, particularly when ocular testimony is irreconcilable with medical evidence.
- Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the cross-examination of an eye-witness is incomplete?
- Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence justify acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an acquittal sustainable under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is no probability of the accused being convicted?
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' In support of this appeal against the judgment dated 26-6-2004 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while exercising the powers under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., acquitted the accused respondents, learned counsel submits that the learned trial Court fell into an error by acquitting the respondents under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Specially when cross-examination of Muhammad Ajmal, complainant-eye-witness was still remaining.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the judgment impugned. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased had not observed any violence, mark of ligature or any external sign on the dead body.
The doctor also sent the viscera to the Chemical Examiner for detecting the poison, which was negative in nature. Had the doctor been satisfied while conducting post-mortem examination that the deceased died due to violence then there was no necessity on the part of the doctor to send the viscera to the Chemical Examiner for detection of poison. In this view of the matter, the ocular account was in clear conflict with medical evidence. Under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., the Court can acquit an accused at any stage of the case if it considers that there is no probability of the accused being convicted.
3. Having gone through the reasons given by the trial Court for acquittal of the respondents under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. We find ourselves in no position to differ with the same and find no force in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.