THE STATE through A.-G. N.-W.F.P. vs GHULAM HAIDER and others
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via petitions for leave to appeal filed by the State against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court. The High Court had overturned the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the respondents, who were originally found guilty of Qatl-i-Amd regarding the death of Muhammad Ishaq, as well as convictions under sections 324 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The State challenged the acquittal, arguing that the High Court erred by disregarding eyewitness testimony, improperly substituting its own opinion for that of a medical expert, and failing to account for the respondents' status as proclaimed offenders. Upon a tentative assessment of the record, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The core legal question is whether the High Court correctly applied the established principles for the appraisal of evidence in criminal cases and whether its reasoning for reversing the conviction and ordering an acquittal is legally sustainable. The Court ordered the issuance of bailable warrants for the respondents to ensure their presence during the appellate proceedings.
- Does the High Court have the authority to substitute its own opinion for that of a medical expert when evaluating evidence in a criminal case?
- What are the criteria for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment rendered by the High Court?
- Are the principles of appraisal of evidence correctly applied when a High Court reverses a conviction based on eyewitness testimony?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS; ACTG. C.J.--- These petitions are directed against identical judgment of Peshawar High Court, dated 3-6-2003 accepting respondents' appeal against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment on the charge of Qatl-i-Amd of deceased Muhammad Ishaq committed on or about 5-6-1999 at about 3-40 p.m. Respondents were also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced to 4 years' R.I. They were convicted under sec on 148, P.P.C. And sentenced to one year's R.I. It may be observed that one of the assailants remains to be fugitive from law and a proclaimed offender.
2. We have heard Dr. Babar Awan and Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of these petitions who have vehemently contended that this was a daylight occurrence promptly reported with local police; that eye-witness account did not suffer from any legal disability; that the, High Court wrongly substituted opinion of the medical expert by its own; that respondents remained proclaimed offenders for over a month and that there was no good reason for substitution of the respondents for real culprits.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and upon tentative assessment of record, we are inclined to grant leave in order to ascertain whether the principles of appraisal of evidence laid down by this Court for safe administration of criminal justice system were fully adhered to and whether reasons recorded by the High Court can be sustained at law for reversing a judgment of conviction into acquittal. Order accordingly.
4. Bailable warrants shall issue against the respondents in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 returnable to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.