THE STATE through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and another, vs JAN MUHAMMAD and others,
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after setting aside their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court misappreciated the evidence and based its acquittal on minor discrepancies, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court held that in the interest of the safe administration of criminal justice, a reappraisal of the entire evidence was necessary to examine the legality of the acquittal. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and issued bailable warrants against the respondents.
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction of the respondents on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions?
- When is a reappraisal of evidence warranted by the Supreme Court in a criminal petition against acquittal?
- Whether the direct evidence of natural witnesses supported by medical evidence was properly evaluated by the High Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This petition has been directed by the State through Advocate- General, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar against the acquittal of the respondents namely Jan Muhammad, Farhad alias Malang, Farhad Ahmed, Jangraiz and Mumraiz Khan, from the charge under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. By the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, vide judgment, dated 8-4-2003, rendered in criminal appeal filed by the respondents against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them under section 302(b), P.P.C. By the trial Court.
2. The respondents were charged for the murder of Karim Khan and Dilawar Khan in the case registered against them at Police Station Badaber, District Peshawar. The occurrence had taken place at 17-00 hours on 11-1-1999 and report was lodged at 22-00 hours on the same day. Mumraiz Khan (P.W.1) and Baswa li Khan (P.W.2) furnished ocular account whereas Dr. Naveed Alam (P.W.3) and Lady Dr. Manila Shabnam Khattak (P.W.7), conducted post-mortem of the deceased. The respondents having been found guilty of the charge were convicted and sentenced accordingly by the trial Court but the High Court in appeal, set aside their conviction and sentence hence the State has preferred this petition (Criminal Petition No,76-P of 2003).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the High Court on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions has excluded from consideration the direct evidence of the most natural and reliable witnesses duly supported by the medical evidence and the attending circumstances. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the High Court without proper appraisal of evidence recorded the acquittal of respondents on flismly and artificial grounds as a result of which serious miscarriage of justice has been caused.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his assistance, we are of the view that in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice and in the given facts and circumstances of the case the reappraisal of the entire evidence to ascertain the question of legality or otherwise of acquittal of the respondents from the capital charge is necessary. Consequently, we grant leave in this petition and issue bailable warrants of the respondents in the sum of Rs,50,000 each returnable to the Sessions Judge, Peshawar.
5. In the connected Criminal Petition No,83-P of 2003 no one has appeared. However, since leave has been granted in Criminal Petition No,76-P of 2003 and Criminal Petition No,83-P of 2003 is connected therewith therefore, the same will be heard as notice case along with the appeal arising out of Criminal Petition No,76-P of 2003.