Ghulam Nabi vs Ikram alias Kama and others
This criminal appeal arose from the acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 by the High Court, who had previously been convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution had suppressed material facts, including the recovery of five crime-empties indicating that the deceased had also fired at the scene. Furthermore, the alleged motive regarding a damaged waste water drain was not supported by the site-plan. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to extend the benefit of doubt to the respondents was based on cogent and valid reasons. Finding no jurisdictional infirmity, illegality, procedural irregularity, or perversity of reasoning in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the acquittal.
- Whether the suppression of material facts by the prosecution, such as firing by the deceased party, entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt?
- Can an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal in the absence of jurisdictional infirmity, illegality, procedural irregularity, or perversity of reasoning?
- What is the legal effect of a failed prosecution motive on the overall credibility of the prosecution's case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, C.J.---Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 had been convicted by the trial court on two counts of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. read with sections 148 and 149, P.P.C. and were variously sentenced but on appeal their convictions and sentences recorded by the trial court were set aside and they were acquitted of the charge by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 13.12.201 1.
2. 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.
3. The record of the case shows that five crime-empties had been recovered from the place where the dead bodies of Manzoor and Noor Hussain were present at the spot and it had completely been suppressed by the prosecution that the deceased had also resorted to firing at the place of occurrence. The motive set up by the prosecution regarding damaging of a drain of waste water by the accused party at the spot had remained far from being established and the site-plan of the place of occurrence did not show any drain having been damaged. After an A elaborate reappraisal of the evidence available on the record the High Court had concluded that some material facts had been suppressed by the complainant party and it was not clear how and why the occurrence had taken place. In these circumstances the High Court had decided to extend the benefit of doubt to respondents Nos.
1 to 5 and had acquitted them of the charge. The respondents' acquittal had come about in the year 2009, i.e. about 10 years ago and the criminal case in hand had originated about 19 years ago. The reasons recorded by the High Court for recording acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 have been found by us to be cogent and valid. No jurisdictional infirmity , illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on the part of High Court has been highlighted before us so as to warrant interference in the impugn ed judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The bail bonds and sureties of respondents Nos. 1 to 5, if any, shall stand discharged.
Cited by 2 cases
- IFTIKHAR AHMED alias Papu Versus State 2026 SCMR 1010
- Ghulam Sarwar vs Khuda Bux and 9 others 2022 YLR 1519