PERVAIZ KHAN vs Shaikh RAIS and 3 others
This criminal acquittal appeal was brought before the Sindh High Court challenging a trial court's judgment. The core legal question addressed concerned the proper evaluation of ocular evidence in relation to medical evidence in criminal trials. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned acquittal judgment, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision. The Court held that medical evidence serves a confirmatory role rather than a primary one. It laid down the principle that if ocular evidence produced on the record inspires confidence, it cannot be discarded or destroyed by medical evidence, even if there are discrepancies. The trial court was directed to rehear the parties on the merits, specifically considering the ocular evidence alongside the medical evidence in light of this established legal principle.
- Does medical evidence override ocular evidence if the latter inspires confidence?
- Is medical evidence considered primary or confirmatory in nature in criminal trials?
- Can an acquittal judgment be set aside and remanded if the trial court failed to properly weigh ocular evidence against medical evidence?
ORDER
1. ' AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, J.--- Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. ' Learned counsel for the private respondents has cited 1992 SCM R 1592, 2003 SCM R 1419/1431, PLD 1994 SC 879, 1992 SCM R 96, PLD 1985 SC 11, 1994 SCM R 1928, 2006 SCM R 1217, 2002 SCM R 261, 2004 SCM R 923 and 2005 YLR 1894.
3. For the reasons to be recorded in the detailed judgment, this criminal acquittal appeal is admitted as well allowed; impugned judgment is set aside and the case stands remanded to the trial Court with direction to rehear the parties on merits of the case, together with the medical evidence; and to decide the case afresh, particularly keeping in view the case-law to the effect that medical evidence would be only confirmatory in nature, and if ocular evidence, produced on the record of the case, inspires the confidence, the medical evidence whatsoever cannot be allowed to destroy the case.