JALAL DIN vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondents of the charge of Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased Umar Din. The trial court had convicted respondent Manzoor Ahmad and sentenced him to death, while acquitting the co-accused, but the High Court overturned the conviction, doubting the presence of the ocular witnesses and the promptness of the First Information Report, while also discarding the alleged motive. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel and examining the evidence, the Supreme Court found sufficient grounds to interfere with the acquittal of respondent Manzoor Ahmad to re-examine and reappraise the evidence regarding the safe administration of criminal justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as not pressed against the other co-accused, but granted leave to appeal against respondent Manzoor Ahmad, issuing bailable warrants for his appearance.
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against an acquittal when the High Court's reasoning regarding ocular evidence and motive requires re-examination?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal be partly pressed against certain respondents while being abandoned against others?
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgment, dated 6-4-2006, 'acquitting the respondents of the charge of Qatl-i-Amd of deceased Umar Din committed on or about 12-2-1996 at about 10-00 a.m.
2. Besides respondent Manzoor Ahmad co-accused Ali Ahmad, Nazir Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Shafi were put on trial for the said crime. At the conclusion of the trial, they were acquitted of the charge while respondent Manzoor Ahmad was found guilty. And sentenced to death and compensation of Rs,1,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased,
3. Unfortunate episode took place in the broad-daylight when the respondent duly armed with a .12 bore gun, accompanied by other co-accused, statedly fired at the deceased and decamped. High Court declined to accept the ocular evidence on the premises that presence of Complainant Jalal Din P.W.3, father of the deceased and Raham Dix P.W.4, father-in-law of the deceased, was doubtful and the F.I.R. Was in fact recorded after detailed investigation into the crime, which could not be said to be prompt. Motive for commission of the crime relating to the innocence of respondent Manzoor Ahmad and the oath to be administered to Raman before the Punchayat of the village was also discarded by the High Court.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and tentatively examining the ocular as well as circumstantial evidence connecting the respondent with the commission of the crime, we do not feel persuaded to agree with the reasons and logic advanced by the High Court for acquittal of the respondent. Needless to point out, appeal against acquittal of co-accused Ali Ahmad and others filed before the High Court had failed and learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the, same before this Court. We would, therefore, dismiss the petition as against respondents Ali Ahmad, Nazir Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Shafi as not pressed and grant leave to appeal against respondent Manzoor Ahmad in order to re-examine and reappraise the evidence with a view to ascertain whether the principles for safe administration of criminal justice laid down by this Court have been fully adhered to.
5. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 shall issue, against respondent Manzoor Ahmad to the satisfaction of the trial Court, who shall report compliance.