WAQEEL AHMAD Versus ABDUL REHMAN
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a criminal case involving murder and simple hurt. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence by acquitting three co-accused on the benefit of doubt while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, Umar Farooq, under Sections 302 and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the accused, motivated by a land dispute, attacked the deceased and an injured witness. The trial court had convicted all four accused, but the High Court found two eye-witnesses unreliable and acquitted three accused due to lack of corroboration, while upholding Umar Farooq's conviction based on the injured witness's testimony and injuries found on the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning and appreciation of evidence suffered from no legal infirmity or contravention of established principles. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that re-appraisal of evidence is not justified where the lower court's findings are sound.
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the purpose of re-appraising evidence when the High Court's findings are legally sound?
- Can a conviction be maintained against one accused while others are acquitted on the benefit of doubt based on the corroboration of an injured witness?
- Is the plea of self-defence sustainable when the evidence indicates the accused caused injuries during a dispute?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH , J. ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions from judgment dated 2 2‑1982 of the Lahore High Court; whereby in a case of murder and simple hurt including sentence of life imprisonment under section 302/323, P.P.C., an appeal was partly allowed; and, while Abdul Rehman, Muhammad Ishfaq and Abdul Jabbar accused, respondents in complainant's petition for leave to appeal against acquittal (No. 76 of 1982), were acquitted on extension of benefit of doubt, the conviction under sections 302 and 323, P.P.C. of Umar Farooq petitioner, was maintained.
2. There was land dispute between the parties. According to the complainant‑side, the accused had got transferred to their side land belonging to Mst. Mehbuba Begum, wife's sister of Muhammad Hanif deceased. She is the wife of Muhammad Anwar the injured P.W. A suit having been instituted from the complainant‑side a few weeks before the occurrence which took place during the night between 16/17‑8‑1978, it was, according to the prosecution being pursued by Muhammad Hanif deceased. On account of this motive the four accused including Umar Farooq petitioner armed themselves with Sotis and caused injuries to Muhammad Hanif deceased as also to Muhammad Anwar P.W. when both of them were present in the field with Waqeel Ahmad, the son of the deceased, ‑who was then irrigating his land. In this occurrence Umar Farooq also received two injuries. Although four Sotis were recovered from the accused, but none of them could be connected with the crime. The prosecution relied on the eye‑witness account given by Waqeel Ahmad, Muhammad Anwar and Sher Jang eye‑witnesses as also the injuries found on Umar Farooq petitioner. The learned trial Court found the case established against all the four accused and accordingly convicted them under sections 302/34 and 323/34, P.P.C. amongst other sentences, life imprisonment was awarded to each one of them for the offence of murder.
3. On appeal, Waqeel Ahmad and Sher Jang were found by the High Court as unreliable witnesses. Muhammad Anwar the injured P.W. was found to have been corroborated by the injuries found on person of Umar Farooq. Accordingly, while acquitting Abdul Rehman, Muhammad Ishfaq and Abdul Jabbar by extension of benefit of doubt for lack of corroboration, the conviction of Umar Farooq was upheld. The plea of self‑defence of Umar Farooq that he had already started irrigating his field when the deceased, Anwar P.W. and one Abdul Sattar tried to divert the water and also caused him injuries, and further that they also thus got injured was rejected on thorough examination of all the circumstances relating thereto.
4. We have heard the learned counsel representing each side in support of the respective petitions for leave to appeal. They seek re‑appraisal of the evidence so as to secure reversal of the impugned judgment on different findings of fact from this Court. The reasoning of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. And the appreciation of evidence is not in contravention of any principle in that behalf.
5. No justification having been found for the re‑appraisal of evidence, leave to appeal is refused in both these petitions.
6. M.I./W‑2/S Petitions dismissed.