MUHAMMAD LATIF Versus STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, along with co-accused, was tried for trespassing and attempting to cause death, resulting in grievous injury to a victim. While the trial court convicted the petitioner and co-accused, the High Court subsequently acquitted the co-accused while maintaining the petitioner's conviction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction could be sustained on the same evidence that led to the acquittal of his co-accused, and whether the prosecution evidence, being allegedly interested, required independent corroboration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was directly charged and specifically identified for causing a severe head injury resulting in partial paralysis. The Court found no merit in the argument regarding the inconsistency of the acquittal of co-accused, as the evidence against the petitioner was distinct and sufficient. The principle affirmed is that where direct, specific evidence of a distinct criminal act exists against an accused, a conviction may be maintained even if co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence.
- Can a conviction be sustained against one accused when co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence?
- Does the testimony of an interested witness require independent corroboration in all criminal cases?
- Is a conviction for attempted murder sustainable where the accused is specifically identified for causing grievous injury?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑ This petition is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 13‑3‑1983 passed in Criminal Revision No. 150 of 1981.
2. The present petitioner alongwith 4 other persons, was tried by a section 30 Magistrate under section 307/452/325 read with sections 148 and 149, P. P. C. for trespassing into the flour mill of Muhammad Sehdir P. W. 1 and for attempting on the life of Zulfiqar Mehdi, P. W. 7, causing grievous injury to Rahmat Ali, P. W. 2 in the prosecution of their common object. The learned Magistrate, after recording prosecution evidence, convicted the accused petitioners under section 307 and sentenced him to 4 years' R. 1. with a fine of Rs. 1 00) or in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and one year R. 1. under section 149, P. P. C. The other accused were also sentenced to one year R. 1. under section 323, P. P. C. and one year's R. 1. under section 148, P. P. C. Fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the injured Zulfiqar as compensation. Appeal was preferred in the Court of Session and revision for enhancement of their sentence was also filed by the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge per order dated 23‑9‑1981 dismissed the appeal and the revision as well. The conviction of the other co‑accused was maintained and sentences were reduced to the period already undergone. A revision was filed before the Lahore High Court which. was dismissed by the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel contended that the learned Single Judge had given the benefit of doubt to the co‑accused of the present petitioner and acquitted them while maintaining the sentence and conviction of the petitioner on the same evidence, which is violative of the well‑known rules of even handed justice that the prosecution evidence was of `interested' nature and, therefore, it was not safe to rely on it unless the same was corroborated by independent evidence. On going through the record and the judgments of the Courts below we find little substance in the argument of the learned counsel. The petitioner has been directly charged by the complainant for causing injuries to him resulting in injury on his head 1 " X " x scalp deep on his right parietal region causing partial paralysis. Thus the petitioner also does not deserve any leniency in the matter of his sentence. The petition is accordingly dismissed
M.Z.M Petition dismissed.