ALLAH DITTA vs PERVAIZ AKRAM and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which acquitted respondent No. 1 of the charge under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after he was previously convicted by the trial court. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in a circumstantial evidence murder case involving an unwitnessed drowning. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's acquittal was unexceptionable, noting that the murder was unwitnessed, the accused was implicated purely on suspicion, the alleged motive lacked timely disclosure and independent corroboration, and medical evidence established the cause of death as drowning without clarifying the surrounding circumstances, while injuries could be attributed to rocks and stones at the spot. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, reinforcing the principle that an appellate court's well-reasoned acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence will not be interfered with when the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether an acquittal recorded by the High Court in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence warrants interference when the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of suspicion alone when the alleged murder is unwitnessed and the motive lacks timely disclosure and independent corroboration?
- Whether medical evidence showing death by drowning along with injuries attributable to surrounding rocks and stones supports a murder conviction without proof of the surrounding circumstances?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Respondent No, 1 had been convicted by the trial court for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine but on appeal he was acquitted by the High Court. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
2. Admittedly the alleged murder had remained unwitnessed and at some subsequent stage respondent No, 1 had been implicated as an accused person purely on the basis of suspicion. The prosecution witness appearing as PW6 had tried to state about a background which could confirm a motive but it had become available on the record that he had not told the complainant about the same or had informed the police in that regard at the earliest opportunity. Apart from that no independent evidence worth its name had been produced before the trial court regarding the alleged motive. The medical evidence had established that the cause of death of Faiz Muhammad deceased was drowning and it had A never become available on the record as to in which circumstances the deceased had drowned to death. The doctor appearing before the trial court as PW9 had stated that some injuries found on the dead body could be a result of hitting hard surface and the site-plan of the place of occurrence showed that there were rocks and stones available at the spot and availability of rocks and stones at the spot was also admitted by some prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances the High Court had concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against respondent No, 1 beyond reasonable doubt and we have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the -said conclusion reached by the High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.