REHMAN ULLAH vs THE STATE and 3 others
This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to set aside the judgment dated 25-9-2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Layyah, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case alleged that the deceased was murdered by her husband and co-accused over a motive relating to a financial demand, whereas the defense claimed suicide. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents was based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, warranting interference in an appeal against acquittal. The Lahore High Court held that the appellant's version was an afterthought introduced with inordinate delay, his presence at the spot was doubtful, and multiple conflicting versions existed. The court established that interference in an appeal against acquittal is a rare phenomenon permitted only to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and a double presumption of innocence is attached to an acquitted accused, precluding appellate interference merely because an alternative view is possible upon reappraisal.
- When will an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
- Can a conviction be based solely on medical evidence when ocular testimony is rejected?
- What is the effect of an inordinate delay in recording a material version of an occurrence by an alleged eye-witness?
- Whether an appellate court can reappraise evidence to substitute a view adopted by the trial court in favor of an acquitted accused?
- Section 417(2-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this appeal under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Appellant seeks setting aside of judgment, dated 25-9-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Layyah whereby he has acquitted the respondent from the charge under sections 302/34, P.P.C. '
2. The brief facts of the case are that Mst. Kalsoom Bibi sister of the appellant was married to Abid Hussain respondent No,l. According to the appellant she was murdered by the respondents and F.I.R. No,l of 2002, dated 2-1-2002 was initially registered on the statement of Abid Hussain at Police Station Chowk Azam on the false story introduced by him. The appellant being not satisfied with the conduct of the police filed writ petition for the recording of his version and his version (Exh.P.L.) was recorded. He became an eye-witness of the occurrence and narrated the details of the occurrence i.e, causing of injuries by Muhammad Ashraf and Abid Hussain aqd catching hold of the deceased by Mst. Surryia Bibi their mother. The motive behind this occurrence was alleged that Mst. Kalsoom Bibi deceased was pressurized to make demand of Rs,one lac and obtain promise of the same amount from her brother. Learned trial Court while not relying upon the motive and ocular account acquitted the respondents from the charge, through the impugned judgment, which is assailed in this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that through medical evidence it is sufficiently proved that the death was caused through thyroiding and it was not the cause of suicide as is claimed by respondent No,l at the time of recording his statement under section 154. Cr.P.C. It is also contended that the appellant appeared as P.W.8 and also produced P.W.9 Muhammad Anwar who had witnessed the occurrence and they fully supported the prosecution case, but their statements have not been relied upon on surmises and conjectures. Further contends that sufficient evidence was available on the 'rdCtftd tb^bhnect the resporiddnts with the commission of the crime but in spite of that they have been acquitted, and impugned judgment is based on misreading and nonreading of evidence, which may be set aside.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. It is an admitted fact that there are four versions of this occurrence, one was given by Abid Hussain respondent No,l, husband of the deceased immediately after the occurrence, on the basis of which, F.I.R. No,l of 2002 was registered about commission of the suicide by the deceased; second by the appellant who, according to the police, also appeared and got recorded his statement (Exh.P.B.) while is narrated in Exh.P.M. And fourth version is in the shape of statement Exh.P.L. In which the appellant claimed himself as an eye-witness of the occurrence along with Muhammad Anwar P.W. 9 injuries to the respondent which was introduced for the first time while and also attributed the filing the writ petition for the recording of his version. Exh.D.B. Is the statement of the appellant wherein he has taken a different stand and had not stated story as narrated by him in Exh.P.L. The Exh.P.L. Has been recorded after inordinate delay but no explanation was given by the appellant regarding the delay in producing the material version by him if he had seen the occurrence. The learned trial Court has rightly found that the version narrated by the complainant is incorrect being afterthought and that there was the possibility of introducing the story in order to involve Abid Hussain etc., in the case in hand on suspicion. Even otherwise the appellant who claimed himself to be eye-witness, his presence at the spot was forced doubtful due to strained relation between him and respondent No,l which he has admitted in Exh.P.L.
Conviction cannot be passed on the medical evidence if the other evidence is not available to connect the respondents with the commission of the crime. We have also perused the medical evidence. The commission of suicide is proved through the ocular evidence as well. We do not find any reason for interference in the appeal against acquittal as the interference in the appeal against acquittal is a rare phenomena and can only be, if miscarriage of justice is borne out on the record. Moreover double presumption of innocence is attached to an accused person who has been acquitted from the charge. Reappraisal of evidence is not the purpose of appeal against acquittal and if two views can be formed, the view adopted in favour of the accused cannot be interfered with by this Court merely on the reason that by reappraisal of evidence, other view can also be formed. We do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.