DILDAR vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 31-10-1982, which partly allowed the petitioner's criminal appeal by converting his conviction under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to one under section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reducing the sentence accordingly. The core legal question involved the appreciation of prosecution evidence, the credibility of eye-witnesses, the establishment of motive regarding illicit overtures, the delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the reliability of recoveries. The Supreme Court held that the High Court duly considered all vital defence circumstances and that the appreciation of evidence was in accordance with accepted principles of criminal justice. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence and evaluation of eye-witness testimony by the courts below will not be interfered with when conducted in accordance with accepted legal principles.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence by the courts below warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution case when eye-witness testimony is found reliable?
- Whether an offence originally charged under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be altered to section 325 based on the established injuries and evidence?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 31-10-1982 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a, criminal appeal was only partly allowed.
2. Petitioner was convicted under section 307, P. P. C. For causing injuries to Muhammad Hussain, P. W. a boy of 16/17 years of age, with a knife 'and a- Sota. Nazir and Sabir, P. Ws. Besides Muhammad Hussain had furnished the ocular account of the occurrence. Muhammad `Hussain also gave the motive that the petitioner retaliated because he the injured, had rebutted his overtures for an illicit connection. There was also the recovery of Crime The defence plea was of false implication because the younger brother of the petitioner bad earlier administered a beating to Muhammad Humain for his "irresponsible behavior towards and involving , the honour of their womenfolk.
3. The trial Court as also a learned single Judge in the High Court relying on the prosecution evidence found the petitioner guilty. The High Court, however, held that the offence. Was one under- section 325P. P. C. And Not under section 307 as found by the trial Court, accordingly the sentence was educed in appeal.
4. Learned counsel has questioned the, findings regarding motive dis--interestedness of the eye- witnesses and non-production of more reliable evidence regarding recovery. He has also criticised the complainant side's `conduct in reporting the matter to the police after a long delay.
5. The learned single Judge in the High Court attended to all the circum--stances which could be considered vital from the point of view of defence. The appreciation of evidence including-the consideration of question of. Delay in F. I. R. Are in accordance with accepted principles of criminal justice. We have not been able to differ with the same not even With regard to the sentence the last point urged by the learned counsel.
6. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.