AJAY BHARWANI and another vs HMI MUHAMMAD and others
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents of murder charges under Section 302(b) read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved the propriety of the High Court's acceptance of the plea of right of private defence and the reappraisal of evidence in an acquittal appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's findings were fully supported by the record, noting that the place of occurrence was a disputed land in possession of the accused party, the deceased was armed, and the complainant party had suppressed the murder of a person from the accused side during the same incident. Finding no jurisdictional infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the High Court's reasoning, and considering the lapse of time since the occurrence and acquittal, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the acquittal and dismissed the appeal. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal based on a valid plea of private defence and supported by the record unless perversity or legal infirmity is established.
- Whether an appellate court can interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal where the High Court has properly appreciated the plea of right of private defence?
- Does the suppression of a cross-case or injury sustained by the accused party weaken the prosecution case?
- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence in an appeal against acquittal when no perversity or legal infirmity is found in the impugned judgment?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--- Criminal Appeal No, 25-K of 2014 At the outset we have been informed that respondent No, 1 namely Haji Muhammad has already died in jail and in view of this development this appeal has abated to his extent.
2. Respondents Nos, I to 7. had been charged with the murder of one Gobandram committed at about 02.20 p.m. on 10.02.2002 in an open field near Seri Farm in village Seri Taluka Mirpurkhas in the area of Police Station Taluka Mirpurkhas, District Mirpurkhas in the backdrop of a dispute over a parcel of land. With the said allegations respondents Nos, 1 to 7 were booked in case FIR No, 12 registered at the above mentioned Police Station during the same day and after a regular trial the said respondents were convicted by the trial court for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. read with section 149, P.P.C. and were sentenced to imprisonment for life each and to pay compensation.
The said respondents challenged their convictions and sentences before the High Court through an appeal which was allowed by the High Court and the said respondents were acquitted of the charge. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 11.08.2014.
3. Leave to appeal had been granted in this case in order to reappraise the evidence and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have undertaken that exercise.
4. According to the prosecution itself the place of occurrence was the very field which was in dispute between the parties, Gobandram deceased and the other members of the complainant party had themselves gone to the place of occurrence which was in possession and under cultivation of the accused party and it is also not denied that at the relevant time Gobandram deceased was armed with a pistol. The record of the case shows that one person from the side of the accused party had also died upon receipt of a firearm injury during the same incident but murder of that person belonging to the accused party had been completely suppressed by the complainant party. It is also available on the record that it was only Gobandram deceased who was attacked by the accused party and no other member of the complainant party was harmed at all. The accused party had advanced a plea of exercise of right of private defence and upon a proper appraisal of the evidence the High Court had accepted that plea in view of the above mentioned circumstances of the case. The criminal case in hand had originated in the year 2002 and respondents Nos, 1 to 7 had earned their acquittal on the merits of the case way back in the year 2014 and during the interregnum three years have already elapsed. The -reasons recorded by the High Court for acquitting respondents Nos, 1 to 7 have been found by us to be borne out from the record. No jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on the part of the High Court has been pointed out before us. In these circumstances no occasion has been found by us for interference with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The bail bonds and sureties of the private respondents shall stand discharged.
Criminal Appeal No 26-K of 2014
5. In view of dismissal of Criminal Appeal No, 25-K of 2014 by this Court today the present appeal has lost its relevance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.