SAEED AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal matter where the respondent was initially convicted by the trial court for the murder of the complainant's father under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving a tractor. The High Court subsequently acquitted the respondent, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The petitioner challenged this acquittal, arguing that the High Court relied on conjectures, failed to appreciate the evidence of natural eyewitnesses, and ignored the explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, noting a nine-hour delay in the F.I.R., the triviality of the alleged motive, the lack of independent witnesses despite the occurrence taking place in a public place, and a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence, which showed only abrasions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's acquittal was based on a sound appreciation of evidence and not arbitrary, thereby refusing leave to appeal.
- Does a nine-hour delay in lodging an F.I.R. combined with a lack of independent witnesses in a public place justify an acquittal?
- Can an appellate court's finding of a conflict between ocular and medical evidence be considered arbitrary?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with an acquittal if the High Court's reasoning is based on a proper appreciation of evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Respondent Muhammad Nawaz was tried in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,196 of 2001 dated 17-11-2001 under section 302, P.P.C. At Police Station Tarkhani, Samundri on the allegation that on the fateful day and time, he intentionally ran over his tractor on Ghulam Qadir and caused his death (complainant's father). The motive alleged was that the appellant Saeed Ahmed complainant/P.W.8 owed a sum of Rs,100 to the appellant and on refusal of the complainant, the respondent resorted to abuses which prompted the deceased to rebuke the appellant which provoked him and he caused the intentional murder. The learned trial Court convicted the respondent under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to death. The learned High Court however allowed the appeal as it found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to sustain conviction.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant seeks leave on the ground that the learned High Court proceeded to acquit the respondent on conjectures; that the evidence led by the prosecution was not properly appreciated by the learned High Court; that both the eyewitnesses though related, were natural witnesses of the occurrence; that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Stood explained by the fact that immediately after the occurrence, the deceased had to be hospitalized; that a bare reading of the postmortem examination would indicate that the injuries suffered by the deceased were the direct result of the tractor having been run over the deceased and that the acquittal of the respondent has led to a grave miscarriage of justice.
3. Having heard petitioner's learned counsel at some length, we note that admittedly there is a delay of nine hours in lodging the F.I.R.; that the motive set was trivial in nature; that both the eyewitnesses namely P.W.8 Saeed Ahmed (complainant) and P.W.9 Khalid Mehmood are closely related to the deceased being son and nephew respectively; that though the occurrence took place in a broad daylight at a public place yet not a single witness appeared to support the prosecution case; that the injuries suffered by the deceased were merely abrasions and the finding that it reflected a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence was not conjectural. That being so, the finding of acquittal in respondent's favor is neither against the evidence led nor arbitrary. In these circumstances no case for interference is made out. The petition lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.
Cited by 5 cases
- Zameer Ahmed Mahar vs The State 2023 SHC 1128
- Muhammad Sohail Alias Kaloo alias Fahad vs The State 2024 YLR 470
- GHULAM SARWER Versus State 2023 PCrLJN 5
- GULAB Versus State 2021 YLRN 75
- MASOOD AHMED Versus State 2022 YLRN 63