MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus HAFEEZ AHMAD
This criminal revision petition is brought by the petitioner Muhammad Ashraf to challenge the acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in a case registered under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a private complaint regarding the murder of his brother. The trial court had acquitted the respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt, while observing that they could be tried again for the same offence. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the acquitted respondents could be subjected to a retrial for the same offence. The court held that since the respondents were tried and acquitted on the same charge, they could not be tried again for the same offence in view of the bar against double jeopardy. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed as having no substance, affirming the principle protecting an accused person from a subsequent trial for the same offence after a competent acquittal.
- Can an accused person be tried again for the same offence after being acquitted by a trial court?
- Does an acquittal giving the benefit of doubt bar a subsequent trial for the same charge?
- Is a revision petition maintainable against an order of acquittal when the trial court's assessment of double jeopardy is correct?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 403, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J. ---Muhammad Ashraf, petitioner has brought the instant revision petition challenging the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 and 2 in case F.I.R. No.40 of 1986, under section 302/34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station, Mitroo District, Vehari vide the judgment dated 30-5-1991 recorded by Ch. Muhammad Iqbal Naru, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that the said case was got registered by the petitioner in respect of the murder of his deceased brother Muhammad Aslam Khan. He had accused respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for the same. The said case was found false by the police and report for the discharge of these respondents was prepared in the same. The petitioner thus filed private complaint against 'them in respect of the same.
3. These respondents/accused were tried for offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. in the same and ultimately acquitted vide the judgment of the same date by the said learned Additional Sessions Judge by giving them the benefit of doubt. He had observed that according to section 403, Cr.P.C. they could be tried again for the same offence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. There is no denying the fact that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were tried on the same charge in the private complaint brought by the petitioner and they ultimately were acquitted in the same by giving them the benefit of doubt. So they could not again be tried for the same offence in view of the provisions of section 403, Cr.P.C.
6. The said observation of the learned trial Court in this regard, therefore, is correct. The instant revision petition, thus has no substance and the same is dismissed as such.
H.B.T./M-2021/L Revision dismissed.