MUHAMMAD NAZIR Versus TARIQ
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent, Tariq, of murder charges, overturning his conviction by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s acquittal of the respondent was justified, particularly given that the respondent admitted to inflicting the fatal injury on the deceased but claimed the right of private defence, a plea the High Court failed to adequately evaluate against the prosecution’s evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had disregarded the ocular testimony and recovery evidence solely because public witnesses were not produced, without properly juxtaposing the prosecution’s version against the respondent’s defence. Finding that the acquittal potentially resulted in a miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the acquittal adhered to the established principles of safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court must rigorously evaluate a plea of self-defence in juxtaposition with the prosecution's evidence, especially when the accused admits to causing the fatal injury.
- Is an appellate court required to evaluate a plea of self-defence when the accused admits to causing the fatal injury?
- Can an appellate court reject ocular testimony and recovery evidence solely because public attesting witnesses were not produced?
- Does the failure to juxtapose the prosecution's version with the defence's version constitute a ground for granting leave to appeal against an acquittal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J. ‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the complainant‑petitioner and is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 23rd December, 1986 whereby Tariq respondent was acquitted and the criminal revision of the petitioner against the acquittal by the trial Court of Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Ali concerned was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts are that the three respondents were tried for charges under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. but the trial Court convicted only Tariq respondent under section 302, P.P.C. for the murder of Allah Ditta deceased and sentenced him to death plus fine. Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Ali co‑accused respondents were acquitted. On appeal the Lahore High Court, Lahore as stated above acquitted even Tariq respondent by accepting his" appeal.
3. The occurrence took place in this case on 23rd October, 1983 at 12 noon in a street. The F. I. R. was lodged by the present petitioner on the same day after about an hour. The three respondents were arrested also on the same day i.e. 23rd October, 1983. At the instance of Tariq respondent was recovered human blood‑stained Chhuri. Muhammad Ali respondent was stated to be empty handed whereas from Ghulam Muhammad respondent was recovered hatchet not blood stained. The trial Court acquitted Ghulam Muhammad respondent because the ocular testimony in his case had not been corroborated by the recovery evidence since hatchet was found to be not blood stained; and Muhammad Ali respondent being empty handed, was acquitted as no specific part had been ascribed to him except Lalkara. Tariq respondent was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as stated above because the ocular testimony in his case was being corroborated by the recovery of human blood‑stained chhuri from him. The eye‑witnesses in this case are three namely, the petitioner who was cousin of the deceased, Ghulam Murtaza brother of the deceased and Muhammad Arif employee of the deceased. The statement of one Muhammad Ashraf was recorded as court‑witness. The motive for the crime is that one Arshad brother of Muhammad Arif P.W. gave Sota blows to one Meraj Din and the accused party had suspected that these Sota blows had been administered to Meraj Din at the instigation of the deceased and Muhammad Arif P.W. The prosecution case is that the three respondents raised lalkara and then attacked the deceased with their respective weapons i.e. Chhuri and hatchet carried by Tariq and Ghulam Muhammad respondents. However, the deceased dodged the hatchet blow of Ghulam Muhammad respondent whereas Tariq respondent inflicted Churri injury in the chest of the deceased. As a result he died on the spot. According to the medical evidence the incised wound on the chest of the deceased had damaged his lung, heart etc.
4. According to the version of Tariq respondent the deceased had entered his Haveli and gave him a Sota blow on his right leg. Thereafter, he felled him down on the ground and pressed his throat with his hands. Thus, he caused the single injury to the deceased in the exercise of his right of self‑defence.
5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the injury caused to the deceased was concerned this fact had been admitted by Tariq respondent although he had raised the plea of self‑defence, but the High Court did not consider this aspect of the case at all as to whether the case for self‑defence was made out or not. The learned Division Bench of the High Court disbelieved the ocular testimony as well as the recovery evidence particularly of human blood‑stained Chhuri recovered at the instance of Tariq respondent only for the reason that the two public attesting witnesses were not produced by the prosecution and they were given up as having been won over. In other words it is submitted that the prosecution version was not put in juxtaposition with the defence version in order to arrive at a proper conclusion. Thus, the acquittal of Tariq respondent who had admitted causing injury to the deceased led to miscarriage of justice especially when he could not prove that he had acted in the exercise of his right of self‑defence. Learned counsel did not press his petition so far as Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Ali respondents were concerned, and consequently this petition as against these two respondents is hereby dismissed as not having been pressed.
6. However, he pointed out that Tariq respondent is probably already in jail in connection with some other case. Leave is accordingly granted in this case only as against Tariq respondent to consider as to whether his acquittal in the circumstances of the case was justified and was in accordance with the well‑established principles of safe administration of criminal justice. If Tariq respondent is in jail he will not be released until the disposal of this case; otherwise bailable warrants be issued against him in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A . C Gujranwala.
7. M.I./M‑403/S Order accordingly.