SAIF ULLAH vs ALI SHER and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the acquittal of nine respondents by the Trial Court in a murder and assault case. The prosecution alleged that the accused waylaid the complainant party, murdered one individual, and confined several others at the Dera of the main accused. The Trial Court acquitted the respondents, finding the prosecution's narrative highly doubtful, specifically noting the lack of a plausible motive, the implausibility of the ambush given the route taken by the complainant party, and the unexplained presence of weapons with the complainants. The High Court upheld this acquittal, finding no error in the Trial Court's assessment. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality, misreading, or non-reading of evidence in the consistent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the acquittal and dismissed the petition, reaffirming the principle that appellate courts will not disturb concurrent findings of fact in acquittal cases absent significant legal error.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal where no misreading or non-reading of evidence is demonstrated?
- Does the failure to prove the alleged motive and the implausibility of the prosecution's version of events justify an acquittal in a criminal trial?
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This petition is directed against a judgment dated 20-3-2002 of the Lahore High Court passed in Crl. Appeal No,54 of 1990 whereby the acquittal of nine- respondents by the learned Trial Judge i,e, a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Bahawal Nagar was affirmed.
2. One Ali Sher; his three sons, namely, Zahid, Rahum and Karam; a son of Karam, namely, Abdullah and four others, namely, Wazir, Ghulam Qadir, Muhammad Yar and Muhammad Naseer were accused of having murdered Saif Ullah son of Aman Ullah; of having murderously assaulted Saif Ullah son of Alam Khan, Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Zaman, Habib Ullah and Amir Abdullah and then of having dragged the said injured persons to the Dera of Ali Sher accused where they were confined and from where they were allegedly recovered by the police.
3. The prosecution case was that on 18-6-1989 the deceased and the injured victims of the occurrence in question had decided at about Maghrab Wela to go to Chishtian City to watch a film; that on their way to Chishtian when they reached near the Dera of Ali Sher accused in Chak No,52-Fateh they were waylaid by the accused persons who mounted an assault on the members of the complainant party; that having caused injuries on the person of the deceased and other above-mentioned injured persons they dragged the four injured persons to the Dera of Ali Sher from where they were subsequently recovered.
4. The learned trial Judge found that the prosecution story was highly doubtful because the complainant party had suddenly made a programme to go and watch a movie and there was no occasion for the accused party to get to know of the same and then to lie in ambush to attack the complainant party; that the place of occurrence i,e, Dera and the village of the accused party did not lie on the road leading from the village of the complainant party to Chishtian City; that if the complainant party was going to watch a film then there was no explanation as to why they should have all armed themselves with guns which were recovered from the place of occurrence; that the place of occurrence was the Dera of the accused party from where the tractor and motorcycle of the complainant party had also been recovered; because the motive set up by the prosecution did not stand proved on record as the daughter of Ali Sher who was alleged to be having illicit relations with Saif Ullah deceased was about 9/10 years of age who was a student of primary school and finally because the defence version appeared to be more reasonable and plausible.
5. These findings and conclusions reached by the learned trial Judge were affirmed by the Honourable High Court while dismissing the complainant's appeal questioning the acquittal of nine accused persons.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-complainant who has been heard at some length has not been able to demonstrate any illegality in the consistent findings of the two learned Courts nor could A he show that the said consistent conclusions reached by the said learned Courts were the result of misreading or non-reading of any material available on record.
7. In this view of the matter, the acquittal earned by the nine respondents does not admit of any interference by this Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. .