THE STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh vs SHAH NAWAZ alias SHAHAN and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which acquitted the respondents of charges related to a double murder. The prosecution alleged that the respondents, motivated by a family dispute, killed two individuals, Zafarullah and Nasrullah, using firearms. The trial court had initially convicted the respondents, finding the prosecution's evidence credible. However, the High Court overturned this conviction, citing issues such as delay in lodging the First Information Report and variations in the reported time of death. The State challenged this acquittal, arguing that the High Court ignored overwhelming incriminating evidence and misapplied legal principles regarding the appreciation of evidence. Upon hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's acquittal order. The Court specifically sought to determine whether the High Court correctly appreciated the prosecution's evidence and whether the grounds for acquittal were legally sustainable in light of the established facts and the trial court's findings.
- Whether the High Court correctly appreciated the prosecution evidence in setting aside a conviction for double murder?
- Can a delay in lodging the First Information Report be considered fatal to the prosecution's case in the context of a double murder?
- Does a variation in the reported time of death of victims constitute sufficient grounds to doubt the entire prosecution case?
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 17th October, 2003, passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Criminal Appeal No,77 of 2000, whereby appeal filed by the respondents was allowed.
2. Precisely stating facts giving rise to the instant case are that the complainant had a family dispute i,e, demand of hand of girl with the respondents. On 17th July, 1998, at about 7-00 a.m.
Complainant Kabil Khan was present in the shop of Muhammad Siddique situated in his village Masoor Ji Wah. P.Ws. Shabbir and Muhammad Siddique were also present complainant was sitting in nearby hotel to take tea while Nasrullah (deceased) another son of complainant was present in his own shop/Medical Store at some distance. Accused-respondents Shah Nawaz alias Shahan and Azizullah armed with guns while Dilshad armed with a pistol appeared and raised Lalkara that they would not to be spared by them with regard to that family dispute arisen between them. Shah Nawaz fired with his gun hitting deceased Zafarullah on his head who fell down and died instantaneously. After a few minutes respondents started running towards complainant's other son namely Nasrullah. Complainant followed them to save his son but within the sight of the complainant and P.Ws. Shabbir and Muhammad Siddique, respondents Azizullah and Dilshad fired with gun and pistol respectively hitting on his head and back who also succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General contended as follows:--
(1) Prosecution produced overwhelming incriminating evidence to establish accusation against respondents but the High Court ignoring the same has acquitted him unjustifiably.
(2) Delay in lodging the F.I.R. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case could not have been considered fatal for the prosecution case.
(3) The variation in the time of death of deceased Nasrullah and Zafarullah has wrongly been considered to be a factor for doubling the prosecution case.
(4) The intrinsic value of the prosecution evidence remained intact despite lengthy cross- examination on the statements of the witnesses particularly P.Ws. Qabil Khan (complainant) and Muhammad Siddique.
(5) The respondents were charged for the commission of double murder and the trial Court on having appreciated evidence in accordance with law convicted them assigning cogent reasons.
(6) The impugned judgment deserves interference by this Court as it has proceeded contrary to the law laid down in the cases of Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 and Tehmina Mufti v. University of Sindh, Jamshoro and another 1995 SCM R 664.
' After hearing learned counsel leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to examine as to whether the respondents have rightly been acquitted by the High Court. To procure the attendance of respondents bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each returnable to the Registrar be issued.