MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus SHER AHMED
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Muhammad Aslam, challenging the acquittal of the respondents, Sher Ahmad and Mumtaz alias Taj, who were previously acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Attock, for the murder of Ashraf. The High Court had subsequently dismissed the petitioner's revision petition against that acquittal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel sought a reappraisal of the evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner failed to raise any question of law or provide sufficient grounds to warrant interference with the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the acquittal. The Court further clarified that this dismissal would not prejudice or affect the pending case against the third accused, Muhammad Akram, who remained an absconder. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not typically undertake a fresh reappraisal of evidence in the absence of a substantial question of law or compelling reasons to disturb concurrent findings of fact.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in an acquittal case where no question of law is raised?
- Does the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of co-accused affect the case of an absconding co-accused?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑-- This petition by Muhammad Aslam is directed against the acquittal of Sher Ahmad, and Mumtaz alias Taj, who were accused alongwith one Muhammad Akram for the murder of Ashraf. Muhammad Akram accused, however, absconded and the case of the two respondents was separated. They were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Attock but were acquitted by him vide judgment, dated 23‑9‑1982. The petitioner filed a revision against their acquittal before the High Court which was dismissed.
Hence the present petition.
2. We have heard the petitioner's counsel. He has not raised an question of law but only wants us to reappraise the evidence. He has no 't been able to put forward any good reason why we should interfere in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below by reappraising the evidence afresh. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
3. It may, however, be clarified that dismissal of this petition shall not have any effect on the case of Muhammad Akram, the third accused who has absconded and has not yet been apprehended.
M. Z. M. Appeal dismissed.