Muhammad Daud and others vs Syed Abid Ali and another
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent acquittal of the respondent by the trial court and the appellate court in a criminal case involving a shootout at an educational institution, which resulted in two deaths and injuries to others. The core legal question is whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence, particularly regarding the testimony of injured witnesses and other eye-witnesses, and whether the forensic evidence linking multiple weapons to the crime scene was adequately considered. The Supreme Court, upon examining the record, noted that while injured witnesses confirmed the incident, they did not visually identify the respondent due to their positioning. However, considering the presence of other eye-witnesses who named the respondent and the absconding of a co-accused, the Court held that the circumstances warranted a deeper review. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence to ensure the ends of justice, issuing bailable warrants for the respondent's appearance.
- Does the failure of injured witnesses to visually identify an assailant preclude a conviction if other eye-witnesses identify them?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a concurrent acquittal in a criminal case?
- Is the presence of forensic evidence linking multiple weapons to a crime scene sufficient to warrant a reappraisal of evidence in an acquittal appeal?
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---A shoot out within the precincts of Jehanzaib College Saidu Sharif Swat resulted into multiple casualties, each youthful; Muhammad Fawad (PW-6), Zafar Ali (PW-9) survived the life of fire, however , Muhammad Musa and Hashim Khan succumbed to their wounds. The petitioner along with Nasir , since proclaimed offender , was arrayed as the culprits in the crime report lodged by Muhammad Daud Khan (PW-18); during the trial, he was joined by other witnesses. Prosecution failed at the first tier as a learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent from the charge vide judgment dated 14.6.2014; appeal against acquittal met with no better fate vide impugned judgment dated 19.2.2015, vires whereof, are being assailed on the ground that both the courts, in concurrence, ran into grievous error by relying upon reticent deposition by the injured witnesses, notwithstanding, that other eye-witnesses present at the spot categorically named the respondent as well as the proclaimed offender , both spearheading the assault in a unison inside an educational premises.
Forensic report confirming use of two different weapons with three empties wedd ing one weapon left at the spot, was a circumstance that heavily reflected upon respondent's culpability , next argued the learned counsel.
2. We have examined the record to find that though both the injured witnesses categorically confirmed receipt of fire shot injuries at the stated venue and point of time in the backdrop, suggeste d in the crime report, however , given their positions in the opposite direction in the crowded canteen, they had not visually seen the respondents, taking on the deceased, a shortcoming seemingly made up by other witnesses present at the spot. In the totality of circumstances and having regard to the absconsion of one of the assailants, we consider it expedient to grant leave so as to reappraise entire evidence with a view to secure the ends of justice. Send for Abid Ali through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like, returnable to the Assistant Registrar of this Court, executable through Station House Of ficer concerned, within a fortnight.