State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Sabz Ali Khan
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, whereby the respondent was acquitted of charges under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased and murderous assault. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction based on peripheral issues, stated durations of time, and lapses by the investigating officer, notwithstanding the ocular testimony of an injured witness and prompt registration of the crime report. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised merit consideration and granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies, peripheral timelines, or investigative lapses do not outweigh a consistent ocular account supported by an injured witness, warranting a reappraisal of evidence by the apex court upon a petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether the High Court is justified in acquitting a respondent accused of homicide by relying on peripheral issues and trivial lapses in investigation?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to reappraise the entire evidence when the prosecution relies on an ocular account furnished by an injured witness?
- Do stated durations of time and minor discrepancies override the preponderance of evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.--- Indicted for homicide for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Sher Muhammad, within the precincts of Police Station Changlay , District Bonair , the respondent was convicted under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code; 1860 by a learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 10.10.2012; he was sentenced to death with a direction to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased; on the coordinate charge of murderous assault on Mushtaq PW, he was sentenced to 7-years' RI with concomitant monetary compensation; the High Court acquitted him from the charges vide impugned judgment dated 06.03.2015, vires whereof, are being assailed on the grounds that there was no occasion for the High Court to take the impugned view inasmuch as the prosecution had successfully driven home charge beyond a shadow of doubt on the A strength of ocular account furnis hed by the witnesses that included an injured with a massive injury . It is next argued that investigative conclusions drawn up pursuant to a prompt recourse to law, inexorably pointed towards respondent's culpability, singularly arrayed in the crime report. According to the learned counsel, reference by the High Court to peripheral issues and stated durations of time are too trivial to override the preponderance of evidence that unambiguously excluded every hypothesis other than respondent's guilt; similarly, according to her, stated lapses on part of the Investigating Officer, being inconsequential, certainly does not cast away prosecution's case, otherwise firmly structured on evidence furnished by the independent witnesses and, thus, the impugned view being artificial warrants interference by the Court in order to avoid miscarriage of justice. Contentions merit consideration; leave is granted to reappraise entire evidence with a view to secure the ends of justice. Send for the respondent through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.200,000/-, returnable to the Assistant Registrar of this Court at Peshawar. Station House Officer shall execute the warrants within a fortnight.